Trump inauguration

[The Romulan Republic]

So if a Nazi President said that inauguration day was now National Aryan Day, that would be the same as Obama's declaration, because they were both trying to appeal to their base?

Again, the words you choose matter. I know that this may be a radical concept for you to grasp, but different words have different meanings, and just because two radically different statements may have broadly similar motives (and really, Trump's is at least as much about his ego as appealing to his base, I'm sure) does not make them the same.

That's why I said it was a false equivalency, and it was entirely apt.

[Dragon Angel]

Indeed. Just this morning, in fact, I'm reading widely published stories about how Trump has just accelerated the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, and how he's rewarding James Comey's meddling in the election by keeping him on at the FBI. The inauguration kerfuffle is already ancient history.

Aaaand with that, Trump firmly hammers one more nail into the coffin of the effectiveness of nonviolent protest.

Standing Rock was one of the few hopes I've truly been having that nonviolent protest can accomplish ... something. Now, I guess, that may not be true within the next four years.

People will lose patience. Tensions will rise, nerves will fray, and someone will make the tiniest mistake.

[The Romulan Republic]

As much as I hate Trump, it is way too soon to be endorsing bloodshed as the only option, and it is dangerous and morally irresponsible to do so. Doing so has more to do with wanting to take out ones' anger on something, I suspect, than actually accomplishing anything besides giving Trump the perfect pretext to crack down on his opponents by force.

As a counter example, I would point to the Womens' March on the 21s. Combining the marchers in various US cities (not to mention around the rest of the world), makes it the largest protest march in American history. About 3 million, I believe. Virtually no violence, nor arrests.

Edit: I'll acknowledge that it might come to violence on a large scale, but their is no reason, as of now, that it has to. If, God forbid, it does, it will be because someone, on one side or the other (and probably both sides) did something excessive and pointless and stupid.

[Dragon Angel]

A protest on as large a scale as that is a great symbolic gesture, but if conditions deteriorate in spite of this symbolism, then it remains merely that: symbolism. If people's lives continue to suffer and become even worse, no matter what you think, there will be consequences from them. They will react without your approval, and in fact, they will sneer at your disapproval with such disgust as to consider you almost a collaborator. Humans, when backed into corners with no other option left, will do whatever it takes for them to survive. Including violating your precious principles.

They will not wait for you to personally consider it to be the "right time".

[The Romulan Republic]

Frankly, we are nowhere near the point where the suffering that is being inflicted now is less than the suffering that would be inflicted by an armed revolt, even if you wish to view it in purely utilitarian terms.

No other option left? Let's see- we have not just peaceful protest, but legal challenges, civil disobedience, mass strikes, the filibuster, the possibility of election victory in two or four years, and state and local governments in blue states choosing to defy Federal law (admittedly this is dangerous, but still not inherently violent), among other options.

[Dragon Angel]

Let's go over your list:

legal challenges

When Trump nominates conservatives to stack the Supreme Court, how far do you believe these challenges can go? Where will the disenfranchised gain resources to challenge the powerful, including the politicians and the corporations, who will have orders of magnitude more than them? Will you contribute to that? Can you?

The truth is, we truly do not know if the power of the courts will act against the powerful. Look at how cops shooting black people is treated in this country for an easy starter. Or basically one of millions of court cases siding with corporations allowing them to violate the law with either no penalty, or a pathetic slap on the wrist.

You ask for these people to put faith into a system that has failed them 90% of the time and will tend toward 100% very soon if the Republicans have all their say.

civil disobedience

Nonviolent civil disobedience will only work so far until a boiling point is struck, and when that happens, all bets are off. In the Standing Rock protests, the nonviolent protesters had crimes committed against them. Dogs were sicced on them by the authorities. Rubber bullets were shot at them. Water cannons were used in sub-zero temperatures. Intentionally. I also remember someone having their arm blown off by a grenade, and another becoming blind in one eye permanently as a result of being struck by another.

They had won a temporary victory when Obama decided to halt the pipeline, but now that Trump is going to ram it through, oh man are they now going to be in a world of hurt. Especially since jackasses have proposed a bill to make it effectively legal to run over protesters if it is done by "accident". It's not through yet, but if lawmakers will actually go through with this and it is unchallenged, what will happen then?

mass strikes

A strike in an economic climate where one is not able to work a singular job to afford living conditions, and must rely on outside assistance for services like health insurance? (And you can bet now that the ACA is being repealed...) Where there is no guarantee that the company won't just immediately fire all its striking workers, legally or illegally, and replace them with fresh, obedient meat?

<Agent Smith Voice> What good is a strike ... if you're unable to live?

the filibuster

An option, if the Democrats can be trusted to filibuster on behalf of their constituents, and not just spinelessly back down to Republicans. Yet again. And then we get to your next point below...

We shall see if they do. Personally, I give it one chance in three.

the possibility of election victory in two or four years

An election victory with a system that many believe, with justified reasons, to be inoperable? With local governments making it difficult-to-impossible for the disenfranchised to vote? With the black box Electoral College? Come on, don't be daft. You yourself have argued about these points.

And in two to four years, if the system fails for them, what then? Will you expect them to wait another two to four years? And if the system elects who they wish for, but who they wish for utterly fails to implement what they need, what then? Will you expect the same?

This is a lot to ask for people who will suffer from policies you will conveniently be living away from.

and state and local governments in blue states choosing to defy Federal law (admittedly this is dangerous, but still not inherently violent)

This is an incredible gamble. It's amazing by itself that Obama allowed states to do things like circumvent scheduled drugs i.e. marijuana. Trump and the Republicans have already stated they are willing to try and bankrupt any town, city, or state willing to go against their agendas. Imagine what they can do with dumb laws already on the books?

As it is, I'm curious if Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, et. al. will still have legalized weed by the end of these next four years...

Frankly, we are nowhere near the point where the suffering that is being inflicted now is less than the suffering that would be inflicted by an armed revolt, even if you wish to view it in purely utilitarian terms.

With all due respect too, I think you're the type of person who will tut tut these people even if their situations meet the conditions you described for your personal approval, like being rounded up into camps. And I think, you are rather out of touch.

I do not want violence either. I really, really do not want it. However, absolutist pacifism even under the most dire of circumstances will be taken advantage of by the sick and contemptible right wing. As much as I do not want there to be a war, if they continue with what they plan to do, they may as well get one.

[The Romulan Republic]

When Trump nominates conservatives to stack the Supreme Court, how far do you believe these challenges can go? Where will the disenfranchised gain resources to challenge the powerful, including the politicians and the corporations, who will have orders of magnitude more than them? Will you contribute to that? Can you?

Aren't their organizations like the ACLU which basically exist to do this?

Their's also already a court challenge against Trump's conflicts of interest, I believe.

The truth is, we truly do not know if the power of the courts will act against the powerful. Look at how cops shooting black people is treated in this country for an easy starter. Or basically one of millions of court cases siding with corporations allowing them to violate the law with either no penalty, or a pathetic slap on the wrist.

You ask for these people to put faith into a system that has failed them 90% of the time and will tend toward 100% very soon if the Republicans have all their say.

I could point to the numerous times when the courts have ruled in favour of civil rights, like the recent legalization of gay marriage. You are cherry picking you examples to support the conclusion you've already reached, which is that inflicting violence on your fellow citizens is the only answer.

Nonviolent civil disobedience will only work so far until a boiling point is struck, and when that happens, all bets are off. In the Standing Rock protests, the nonviolent protesters had crimes committed against them. Dogs were sicced on them by the authorities. Rubber bullets were shot at them. Water cannons were used in sub-zero temperatures. Intentionally. I also remember someone having their arm blown off by a grenade, and another becoming blind in one eye permanently as a result of being struck by another.

Source on the grenades?

In any case, yes, some people might unfortunately get frustrated and turn to violence. Not, however, necessarily when it is justified to do so.

More on what I would consider justified shortly.

They had won a temporary victory when Obama decided to halt the pipeline, but now that Trump is going to ram it through, oh man are they now going to be in a world of hurt. Especially since jackasses have proposed a bill to make it effectively legal to run over protesters if it is done by "accident". It's not through yet, but if lawmakers will actually go through with this and it is unchallenged, what will happen then?

I would defend the right of a protester to defend themselves against a vehicular assault by force. Not because I think its an effective or legitimate protest tactic, but simply because I respect the right of anyone to use force to the extent that it is truly necessary to defend themselves or other from an immediate physical assault.

That said, their are situations where it may be morally justifiable in theory to use force, but not pragmatic. Because its not a case of "the people rise up in glorious revolution, and then we win". Trying to bring about peaceful reform can be costly and frustrating, but not nearly as much as armed revolt can be. Or why don't you ask the people of Syria, or Egypt, what their years of blood has accomplished for them?

Revolutions often replace one vicious regime with another, and that's presuming they win. More likely, they lose horribly, because the government (especially in America) has more firepower, and violence gives them a justification to use it on their opponents.

So once you start using force, especially against people who are ready and willing to use it back (like Trump likely is), then you have to be prepared to take it all the way. Are you prepared to advocate the justice of an American civil war? And are you confident you can win it?

You're acting as though its unreasonable to support peaceful reform because it goes nowhere, or happens to slowly and at too high a cost. To which I respond: do you actually delude yourself that violent conflict would necessarily be faster or less costly?

A strike in an economic climate where one is not able to work a singular job to afford living conditions, and must rely on outside assistance for services like health insurance? (And you can bet now that the ACA is being repealed...) Where there is no guarantee that the company won't just immediately fire all its striking workers, legally or illegally, and replace them with fresh, obedient meat?

<Agent Smith Voice> What good is a strike ... if you're unable to live?

This is a valid point, but on the other hand...

Do you think a violent solution is cost-free? I might just as snidely reply "What good is a gun, if you're the one getting shot?"

Again, idiots act like revolution is a quick, simple solution compared to peaceful protest, and only a coward or collaborator would reject it. They conveniently overlook the dead (especially the innocent dead), and the burning cities, and the old tyrant being replaced with a new one that so often happens.

Again, ask the Syrians about the relative cost of violent revolt.

An option, if the Democrats can be trusted to filibuster on behalf of their constituents, and not just spinelessly back down to Republicans. Yet again. And then we get to your next point below...

We shall see if they do. Personally, I give it one chance in three.

Oh look, you admitted that their's a non-violent option.

An election victory with a system that many believe, with justified reasons, to be inoperable? With local governments making it difficult-to-impossible for the disenfranchised to vote? With the black box Electoral College? Come on, don't be daft. You yourself have argued about these points.

And in two to four years, if the system fails for them, what then? Will you expect them to wait another two to four years? And if the system elects who they wish for, but who they wish for utterly fails to implement what they need, what then? Will you expect the same?

I am concerned that electoral victory may become effectively impossible. I am not yet convinced that it is.

I mean, for all the corruption and voter suppression, Trump barely won on a technicality. The majority really is on our side, and if the Republicans crash and burn as hard as they look likely to (fun fact- Trump's inaugural approval rating is below W's post-Katrina rating), then the numbers may be sufficient to overcome even Republican election manipulation. Which would, I hope you agree, be a far better solution than murdering the people who disagree with you (or getting murdered by them).

This is a lot to ask for people who will suffer from policies you will conveniently be living away from.

Kiss my ass. While their are undoubtably people who are at greater risk than me, nowhere in the world is unaffected by US politics. Nor does the fact that I am a duel citizen, and currently living in Canada, make me less of an American.

Using that card against me will earn you a lifetime membership to my personal shit list.

This is an incredible gamble. It's amazing by itself that Obama allowed states to do things like circumvent scheduled drugs i.e. marijuana. Trump and the Republicans have already stated they are willing to try and bankrupt any town, city, or state willing to go against their agendas. Imagine what they can do with dumb laws already on the books?

As it is, I'm curious if Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, et. al. will still have legalized weed by the end of these next four years...

Their's been a lot of talk of states and cities ignoring Trumpian federal law. How much will come of it remains to be seen, but while a drastic action, its still a potentially effective form of resistance short of armed revolt.

With all due respect too, I think you're the type of person who will tut tut these people even if their situations meet the conditions you described for your personal approval, like being rounded up into camps. And I think, you are rather out of touch.

Fuck off, asshole. Nice allusion to the Holocaust their, implicitly equating me to someone who would have supported allowing the Nazis to commit genocide. Also an unwarranted accusation of dishonesty.

I have stated previously that genocide and slavery are situations that justify armed revolt, and I do and will continue to stand by that.

If that is the level of personal dishonesty that you are going to stoop to, I see no point in continuing this conversation except to insult you.

I do not want violence either. I really, really do not want it.

Then stop trying to justify it when it isn't necessary.

However, absolutist pacifism even under the most dire of circumstances will be taken advantage of by the sick and contemptible right wing. As much as I do not want there to be a war, if they continue with what they plan to do, they may as well get one.

I am not an absolute pacifist, as I have made clear numerous times on this board.

But their is a world of ground between absolute pacifism, and feeling that the current situation does not justify armed revolt. As you damn well know.

[Dragon Angel]

Aren't their organizations like the ACLU which basically exist to do this?

Their's also already a court challenge against Trump's conflicts of interest, I believe.

The ACLU's resources aren't infinite. I dearly hope they and others like them can succeed, because if they don't...

(inb4 "BUT THAT'S ANOTHER METHOD TOO YOU JUST ADMITTED IT!!!")

I could point to the numerous times when the courts have ruled in favour of civil rights, like the recent legalization of gay marriage. You are cherry picking you examples to support the conclusion you've already reached, which is that inflicting violence on your fellow citizens is the only answer.

Then stop trying to justify it when it isn't necessary.

Lol what the fuck? Am I saying violence is the only answer right at this moment? Wow, and you have a history of complaining that people put words in your mouth. And you go off calling me dishonest later here. You're priceless.

No, I said that if events continue as they are, the Republicans will create a situation where violence may be the only answer as the people who are suffering see it.

Now I know why people fucking hate you.

Source on the grenades?

Tear gas canister causing blind eye, grenade causing arm to be in jeopardy.

I would defend the right of a protester to defend themselves against a vehicular assault by force. Not because I think its an effective or legitimate protest tactic, but simply because I respect the right of anyone to use force to the extent that it is truly necessary to defend themselves or other from an immediate physical assault.

Which has been already happening you jackass. Do you have any clue what is going on at the NoDAPL protests? They've not been run over by vans yet, but they have been shot at, frozen, maimed. You're getting dangerously close to being in approval of retaliatory action from them!

That said, their are situations where it may be morally justifiable in theory to use force, but not pragmatic. Because its not a case of "the people rise up in glorious revolution, and then we win". Trying to bring about peaceful reform can be costly and frustrating, but not nearly as much as armed revolt can be. Or why don't you ask the people of Syria, or Egypt, what their years of blood has accomplished for them?

Whoah whoah it's as if I have already said that I don't want a violent revolution. And you're calling me dishonest...

Revolutions often replace one vicious regime with another, and that's presuming they win. More likely, they lose horribly, because the government (especially in America) has more firepower, and violence gives them a justification to use it on their opponents.

So once you start using force, especially against people who are ready and willing to use it back (like Trump likely is), then you have to be prepared to take it all the way. Are you prepared to advocate the justice of an American civil war? And are you confident you can win it?

If events become this way, then I may not have a choice now, will I?

I really love this warpath against a windmill you're taking right now.

You're acting as though its unreasonable to support peaceful reform because it goes nowhere, or happens to slowly and at too high a cost. To which I respond: do you actually delude yourself that violent conflict would necessarily be faster or less costly?

Do you think a violent solution is cost-free? I might just as snidely reply "What good is a gun, if you're the one getting shot?"

Again, idiots act like revolution is a quick, simple solution compared to peaceful protest, and only a coward or collaborator would reject it. They conveniently overlook the dead (especially the innocent dead), and the burning cities, and the old tyrant being replaced with a new one that so often happens.

Again, ask the Syrians about the relative cost of violent revolt.

Who is deluding themselves? Who actually said violent revolution would have a trivial cost? You're literally being the worst hypocrite you preach against. Show me where I said there would be an insignificant cost or retract this statement.

Oh look, you admitted that their's a non-violent option.

Wow, are you going to imply this is going to be the silver bullet that will win all your arguments here? How utterly naive.

I am concerned that electoral victory may become effectively impossible. I am not yet convinced that it is.

I mean, for all the corruption and voter suppression, Trump barely won on a technicality. The majority really is on our side, and if the Republicans crash and burn as hard as they look likely to (fun fact- Trump's inaugural approval rating is below W's post-Katrina rating), then the numbers may be sufficient to overcome even Republican election manipulation. Which would, I hope you agree, be a far better solution than murdering the people who disagree with you (or getting murdered by them).

I don't think you're going to believe me since you're fuming like a cartoon character but I'll try it anyway: Yes, I do agree this would be a far better solution. Let's just hope the current government does not fuck things up enough to make that impossible.

Kiss my ass. While their are undoubtably people who are at greater risk than me, nowhere in the world is unaffected by US politics. Nor does the fact that I am a duel citizen, and currently living in Canada, make me less of an American.

Using that card against me will earn you a lifetime membership to my personal shit list.

Ooh, I hit a nerve, didn't I?

Add me to your shit list then for eternity, my friend. I will use that card against you, because when the chips are down, you may be living in a relative paradise compared to those disenfranchised people. Provided Canada's government does not radically shift again, you will have it much easier there than so much of the population here.

It is easy to be a saint in paradise, you privileged donkey.

Their's been a lot of talk of states and cities ignoring Trumpian federal law. How much will come of it remains to be seen, but while a drastic action, its still a potentially effective form of resistance short of armed revolt.

Convince these people that it has a chance of working beyond the doubts of their supposed benefactors backing them, and perhaps you may have a point.

Fuck off, asshole. Nice allusion to the Holocaust their, implicitly equating me to someone who would have supported allowing the Nazis to commit genocide. Also an unwarranted accusation of dishonesty.

I have stated previously that genocide and slavery are situations that justify armed revolt, and I do and will continue to stand by that.

If that is the level of personal dishonesty that you are going to stoop to, I see no point in continuing this conversation except to insult you.

I am not an absolute pacifist, as I have made clear numerous times on this board.

But their is a world of ground between absolute pacifism, and feeling that the current situation does not justify armed revolt. As you damn well know.

lol? It's difficult to sort through what you say because you are so goddamn insistent on pacifism with a trigger finger against any post you see coming close to this subject, and so morally pompous that I have little confidence you would support people even as they may be soon dying from being destitute, and without adequate health care. I've also seen enough liberals in the last few days drop over themselves defending Richard Spencer and going all "but maybe we should listen to what the Nazis have to say!!!" to continue having patience for this bullshit.

I have had a neutral opinion of you for a while even in the face of half this subforum's seeming vendetta against you, but Jesus Christ get your message into control before you start accusing ME of being "dishonest". No, I don't damn well know what you believe.

However, if you'd like to devolve this conversation into base insults, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

[The Romulan Republic]

Retract and apologize for:

Repeatedly comparing me to Holocaust enablers and Nazi sympathizers, and suggesting that I would condemn armed resistance to genocide despite my repeated statements on this subject.

Discrimination on the basis of nationality (suggesting that I am less American, and my views on American politics less legitimate, because of my duel citizenship).

Bringing up irrelevant disputes I had with other posters in other threads.

That is all.

[Dragon Angel]

If you will not address your utterly blatant misrepresentation of my words and dishonesty, then this discussion has frankly ended. You have a talent for missing the point and I will hold you to that if you keep on doing so.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do not believe that I misrepresented you deliberately. It is possible that I misinterpreted your position, even that I jumped too quickly to a false conclusion, and if so, I am sorry.

However, I also feel that you were somewhat unclear- for someone who does not want violence, you are working awfully hard to discredit the effectiveness of the alternatives.

Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept that their was an honest misunderstanding here.

Even if I had been dishonest, however, it would not have excused, for example, your trying to turn the debate into an attack on me personally rather than on my argument (aka ad hominem). Or suggesting that their was any ambiguity about my views on violent revolt in the case of genocide when your previous comments indicated that you knew my position on the subject perfectly well. Much less actually comparing me to Nazi sympathizers, and attacking me on the basis of my duel citizenship. All blatant falsehoods you have shown not the slightest regret for engaging in (indeed you proudly boasted about "touching a never" with the last one, and declared your intention to keep doing it).

Hint: Comparing someone to Nazi sympathizes, and attacking them on the basis of their nationality, are both lines that, once crossed, tend to signal an end to polite conversation.

Or, for those less pacifistic than me, "fighting words".

[Joun_Lord]

I've also seen enough liberals in the last few days drop over themselves defending Richard Spencer and going all "but maybe we should listen to what the Nazis have to say!!!" to continue having patience for this bullshit.

Apologies for butting in with my big old butt of buttingness made of butter, but where have you seen this? I've seen liberals saying that Richard Spencer getting slapped like the little bitch he is was wrong because using physical violence against someone for a difference of opinion, even if the person's opinion is some people are persons, is wrong. I've seen some people defend the piece of flaming garbage stuffed into the diseased urethra of Trump's centimeter peter's right to say some of the most horrible, god awful shit said since toothbrush mustaches were still in style but nobody I've heard say we should listen to what he says.

And I agree with that sentiment. I'm not exactly going to be weeping........with sadness over Spencer getting fucked up I think it hurts his oppositions cause to resort to violence in response to words far more then any pain he might have suffered. We live in a society where we shouldn't go to fists over words, even words we vehemently disagree with because we aren't giant turds with shit spewing from our talking orifice.

Richard Spencer's own terrible words do far more damage to him then our fists and to shut him up gives strength to him. He needs to be let to spew his hate so people aren't inclined to listen to his Nazi ass.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mostly agree with that, but their is one important point you are overlooking:

Some people do "listen to his Nazi ass." If recent events should have taught us anything, its that the far Right, including the white nationalist element, is a lot stronger than previously thought.

That said, I think that we should be able to counter that swill by reasoned debate, not brute force (barring a situation where the Nazis actually control the government and are going around rounding up and slaughtering people or something).

[Joun_Lord]

Some idiot bastards are going to listen to him anyway. Some idiots listen to flat earthers, Christian fundies, racial supremacists of all colors, and those who say Episode 1 was the best Star Wars movie. Thankfully they are mostly talking to a closed audience. Reasonable normal jackholes ain't going to listen to anything those fucks have to say.

The people mostly listen to such super slimy shit that Spencer spews in scads are people who either way are going to buy into it. If any have recently joined I would think it would only be the result of buying into Spencer's victim complex before his message, believing him that the "liberal media" is trying to shut him down, that the "far left" is trying to attack him and so on but for the most part anyone not already inclined to swallow that load of hot bullshit would not now.

Yes the Far Right (or is it Far Reich?) is stronger then alot of people thought. Mostly because alot of people buried their heads into the sand, ignored and buried the problem, acted like because they protested against it, whined at it, made petitions and dopey ass signs it was weak and no longer a threat.

Trump propelled into the White House on a river of shitheads proves that just shutting up the wannabe goose stepping cockgobblers doesn't actually make them go away. They were like a rash that someone covered up with make-up. Sure you can't see the rash but its still there, spreading and getting worse until it bursts free to spray everyone with pus and shit and shitty pus.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, but this is missing an important point.

Ignoring evil jackasses may be a bad idea. You can't defeat what you don't pay any attention to.

But there's a difference between paying attention to them and trying to compromise with them. Going "well, maybe it'll be okay if Trump puts [insert list of horrible people here] in power because The System Works" is a very dangerous and very complacent attitude. Faith in The System is one of the reasons so many people dismissed the possibility of Trump winning the election in the first place.

There is a certain category of movements that can arise within democracy that break the system. Trump has not avowed his explicit desire to break the system, nor have (many of) his supporters. But that isn't enough for us to simply assume that the system is unbreakable.

I am not saying "Trump is literally Hitler" here (as I've said before, the analogies to Mussolini are much stronger). But it bears considering that even Hitler had a huge number of people on the right-wing of his own country who were willing to tolerate him even if they weren't comfortable with everything he did. And a huge number of center-left people who were willing to at least obey him because, well. He was the leader of their country, and they had faith in the system, and the system that had lawfully-ish brought him into power couldn't be that wrong, could it?

Even when the man's iron fist of oppressive authority within Germany still had several fingers under construction. Even when he could have been stopped if enough prominent, authoritative people with a conscience had said "no, this is wrong and we will not countenance it..." He wasn't stopped.

There is a version of Newton's First Law in politics: a movement remains a movement unless acted on by an outside force. It keeps going until something stops it.

And if Hitler wasn't stopped, we cannot assume anyone will be stopped, unless acted on by a specific, determined outside force.
________________________

Dragon Angel makes a good point here. One of the reasons democracies WORK in the first place is relevant here. It's a big deal. It's the main reason a democracy can go for hundreds of years without a civil war or a coup breaking out (just try and find an autocracy or oligarchy with a track record like that.

The reason is simple:

Democracy permits transfer of power, and compromise in policy, through peaceful means. In a democracy, people with a political agenda can generally get what they want, or at least some of what they want, without violence.

That is a very simple principle. Take that principle away, and you remove the astonishing level of 'peacefulness' that prevails in democratic politics.

When the reaction to protestors is simply to ignore them at best, or kill them at worst, and to deliberately accelerate projects that are being protested... protesting is useless. When the reaction to an opposition politician getting elected is to 'hollow out' the powers of her office so that she can't change anything... elections are useless. When the courts have been packed thanks to a deliberate strategy of obstructing judicial appointments until such time as they could be filled by an ultimately corrupt member of one's own party... the courts become useless.

And all that remains to the starving peasants is to storm the Bastille.

Are we in that place yet? No. But could we go to that place? Yes. It could happen here. America is not magically immune to the forces that have brought down democracies in the past, or at least thrown them into chaos. America has already fought a civil war, and had periods of terrifying, violent civil unrest. It could happen here, if the institutions that permit peaceful compromise and transfer of power are subverted or damaged.

Please, please let us not pretend otherwise.

[ray245]

Okay, but this is missing an important point.

Ignoring evil jackasses may be a bad idea. You can't defeat what you don't pay any attention to.

But there's a difference between paying attention to them and trying to compromise with them. Going "well, maybe it'll be okay if Trump puts [insert list of horrible people here] in power because The System Works" is a very dangerous and very complacent attitude. Faith in The System is one of the reasons so many people dismissed the possibility of Trump winning the election in the first place.

There is a certain category of movements that can arise within democracy that break the system. Trump has not avowed his explicit desire to break the system, nor have (many of) his supporters. But that isn't enough for us to simply assume that the system is unbreakable.

I am not saying "Trump is literally Hitler" here (as I've said before, the analogies to Mussolini are much stronger). But it bears considering that even Hitler had a huge number of people on the right-wing of his own country who were willing to tolerate him even if they weren't comfortable with everything he did. And a huge number of center-left people who were willing to at least obey him because, well. He was the leader of their country, and they had faith in the system, and the system that had lawfully-ish brought him into power couldn't be that wrong, could it?

Even when the man's iron fist of oppressive authority within Germany still had several fingers under construction. Even when he could have been stopped if enough prominent, authoritative people with a conscience had said "no, this is wrong and we will not countenance it..." He wasn't stopped.

There is a version of Newton's First Law in politics: a movement remains a movement unless acted on by an outside force. It keeps going until something stops it.

And if Hitler wasn't stopped, we cannot assume anyone will be stopped, unless acted on by a specific, determined outside force.
________________________

Dragon Angel makes a good point here. One of the reasons democracies WORK in the first place is relevant here. It's a big deal. It's the main reason a democracy can go for hundreds of years without a civil war or a coup breaking out (just try and find an autocracy or oligarchy with a track record like that.

The reason is simple:

Democracy permits transfer of power, and compromise in policy, through peaceful means. In a democracy, people with a political agenda can generally get what they want, or at least some of what they want, without violence.

That is a very simple principle. Take that principle away, and you remove the astonishing level of 'peacefulness' that prevails in democratic politics.

When the reaction to protestors is simply to ignore them at best, or kill them at worst, and to deliberately accelerate projects that are being protested... protesting is useless. When the reaction to an opposition politician getting elected is to 'hollow out' the powers of her office so that she can't change anything... elections are useless. When the courts have been packed thanks to a deliberate strategy of obstructing judicial appointments until such time as they could be filled by an ultimately corrupt member of one's own party... the courts become useless.

And all that remains to the starving peasants is to storm the Bastille.

Are we in that place yet? No. But could we go to that place? Yes. It could happen here. America is not magically immune to the forces that have brought down democracies in the past, or at least thrown them into chaos. America has already fought a civil war, and had periods of terrifying, violent civil unrest. It could happen here, if the institutions that permit peaceful compromise and transfer of power are subverted or damaged.

Please, please let us not pretend otherwise.

I think the American civil war is an excellent example of American politics breaking down.

[The Romulan Republic]

If any of that was addressed to me, Simon_Jester, I never said that it couldn't happen. Of course it could. And yet, if I'd said that in a different context, I'd probably have been mocked for hyperbole and alarmism.

I simply think Dragon Angel is seriously overestimating how close we are to that point, and has an overly broad definition of what warrants political violence.

Yes, it could happen. And we should be doing everything we can to avert that eventuality.

[Shroom Man 777]

The problem is, how to justify pre-emptive action. Not that I'd get in the way of groups from sectors that see disproportionate mistreatment - have been seeing it for eons - that other more mainstream, less-marginalized sectors can't as easily appreciate or comprehend.

Malcolm X where are you.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is, how to justify pre-emptive action. Not that I'd get in the way of groups from sectors that see disproportionate mistreatment - have been seeing it for eons - that other more mainstream, less-marginalized sectors can't as easily appreciate or comprehend.

Malcolm X where are you.

"Pre-emptive action" is never justified. If you fire the first shot, you are the aggressor, plain and simple. And if you do it for political reasons, you are arguably (and in some cases inarguably) a terrorist. And that has to be the line, because otherwise people will be initiating violence for over trivial causes, to advance an agenda, or because they think something might be going to happen and they need to strike first. And if enough people think that way, society breaks down.

And, of course, a lot of people get hurt.

Or are you using some other definition of "preemptive"?

Their are situations where violence can be justified, but only as a defensive necessity. Though I suppose that begs the question of what constitutes "defensive necessity".

[Shroom Man 777]

That's the question - defensive necessities. And even "preemptive" can be debated since what should be counted as the aggressive violence done by the oppressors? They don't have to barge into the homes of orphaned minorities and let the flamethrowers loose. We've seen for the longest time that they can get away with other ways of screwing people over.

[Dragon Angel]

Welp, here's the megapost you've all been waiting for...

I do not believe that I misrepresented you deliberately. It is possible that I misinterpreted your position, even that I jumped too quickly to a false conclusion, and if so, I am sorry.

However, I also feel that you were somewhat unclear- for someone who does not want violence, you are working awfully hard to discredit the effectiveness of the alternatives.

Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept that their was an honest misunderstanding here.

Accepted. Here is a more concise explanation of my position: I am heavily conflicted on at what point violence will be necessary. Ideally, I would only wish for it to be in the cases you had mentioned; genocide, slavery, mass internment, etc. There is another part of me that is seeing it happen far sooner than we may both want, which may be the point where the economy collapses, a new recession begins, and the system fails to bring people to a level where they can continue to live, and feed their families. That part of my beliefs is winning as time passes.

Humans, being animals with an instinctual desire to survive and failing to see the system properly providing ways to, will resort to anything they can if the world falls. I'll go into this more in my reply to Joun, but suffice to say, I've now reached a point where I believe I would be extremely insensitive and out of touch to the reality that people below me on the socioeconomic ladder face if I condemn them, as well as completely hypocritical.

I posited those arguments as a devil's-advocate-but-not-so-devil's-advocate position representing not only those I speak of's thought processes, but also mine in that half of my mind. They were not to directly advocate for violence but to explain how the methods you brought up can fail, and fail spectacularly. In my view, failure to understand these will result in epic disasters on the level of the Democrats not predicting Trump's electoral victory.

I have no serious desire for bloodshed to occur. I don't want to live in a war-torn ruin of another page of history, and if the government does not fuck anything else up, we just might get through this alive. I will, though ..... have to accept the very likely reality that this country will be going down a path it will never recover from, and by the actions of its own internal structures. The world of Neil Blomkamp's Elysium is one I see us approaching day by day, and like the concept of war itself, there is no easy answer nor any likable solution that will get us out if that time arrives.

Even if I had been dishonest, however, it would not have excused, for example, your trying to turn the debate into an attack on me personally rather than on my argument (aka ad hominem). Or suggesting that their was any ambiguity about my views on violent revolt in the case of genocide when your previous comments indicated that you knew my position on the subject perfectly well. Much less actually comparing me to Nazi sympathizers, and attacking me on the basis of my duel citizenship. All blatant falsehoods you have shown not the slightest regret for engaging in (indeed you proudly boasted about "touching a never" with the last one, and declared your intention to keep doing it).

Hint: Comparing someone to Nazi sympathizes, and attacking them on the basis of their nationality, are both lines that, once crossed, tend to signal an end to polite conversation.

Or, for those less pacifistic than me, "fighting words".

I'll be blunt: I'd been observing your replies to any subject or post which had mentioned the topic of violence and nonviolence, and I haven't been able to gain a consistent viewpoint from you. Sometimes you leave those exemptions from your pacifism, and other times you talk as if there should be no exemption, period. Until now, I haven't chosen to inquire what is your real belief because I didn't see it as worth the trouble. Then you replied to my first post.

I was admittedly sardonic about touching a nerve; I don't view you as "less American". That is definitely nowhere close to where I was going with that. I viewed you as living in a position of privilege, in a different country separate from the policies of the United States. A country with socialized healthcare, compared to a country soon to have crippled healthcare. You compared your position with people living here by stating that the US's policies have an effect on the rest of the world, but that is an academic point of view where people can craft theories all they want, but it is drastically separate from what the people living here will immediately feel.

In other words, you seemed like an upper class rich fuck talking down to the middle and lower classes, when comparing the state of Canada and the soon-to-be state of the United States.

I'll be willing to drop this, though. I have no desire to pursue this and I have infinitely better things to argue about.

Apologies for butting in with my big old butt of buttingness made of butter, but where have you seen this? I've seen liberals saying that Richard Spencer getting slapped like the little bitch he is was wrong because using physical violence against someone for a difference of opinion, even if the person's opinion is some people are persons, is wrong. I've seen some people defend the piece of flaming garbage stuffed into the diseased urethra of Trump's centimeter peter's right to say some of the most horrible, god awful shit said since toothbrush mustaches were still in style but nobody I've heard say we should listen to what he says.

It's mostly borne from social media, but there is a very significant portion of liberals and centrists who are more than willing to give neo-Nazis a platform, failing to understand that the ideology of a neo-Nazi is antithetical to that of the concept of free speech. It is a failing to understand that history has already taught us the consequences of Nazism, of fascist dictators, and to give the neo-Nazis any modicum of legitimacy is to not only ignore history, but also devalue the education that was supposed to have taught us of it. It's an implicit belief that Nazi ideas must have some merit to them, otherwise why bother wasting time with their nonsense?

Yes, there are people this dumb who are supposedly on "our side".

And I agree with that sentiment. I'm not exactly going to be weeping........with sadness over Spencer getting fucked up I think it hurts his oppositions cause to resort to violence in response to words far more then any pain he might have suffered. We live in a society where we shouldn't go to fists over words, even words we vehemently disagree with because we aren't giant turds with shit spewing from our talking orifice.

Richard Spencer's own terrible words do far more damage to him then our fists and to shut him up gives strength to him. He needs to be let to spew his hate so people aren't inclined to listen to his Nazi ass.

In an ideal society, I would certainly agree with you. However, we live very, very far away from that ideal society now.

In today's society, there is a real, legitimate fear that white supremacists will have more power than they have ever before had in the US government. Spencer's words, we would hope, should speak for themselves and make it obvious how much of a cartoon villain he is. However ... that hasn't happened. His position has somehow been escalated much higher than it ever should have been. Why is that?

I can only speculate why. To examine that would take a conversation outside the scope of this one. But, the very fact that he has this high a position in our brave new world scares the living shit out of marginalized people, including myself. The problem is, we have tried to reason him and his kind out of existence. This has happened starting from our times in middle/high school. We have had huge entertainers like John Oliver laying the smackdown on them in all the comic glory you can muster from that darkness. Yet, this has not seemed to affect them much, if it has in any significant way.

Marginalized people are seeing that happen. They are seeing the failing of facts, of reason, getting through to not only the Nazis, not only the people in the middle who for whatever fucking reason have some measure of sympathy for the Nazis, but also the people in governmental power. They are seeing their only other avenues of protest being gradually eliminated. They see the world around them almost deliberately cornering them and being complacent about it.

I have been seeing people I'd formerly known as strict nonviolent advocates cheering on the punching of a Nazi. This fear of nonviolence no longer mattering? It is spreading, as a consequence of the cancer that is almost two decades of Bush expanding governmental powers to near-authoritarian levels, to Obama barely making efforts to reduce those powers, and now to Trump moving forward to expand those powers to textbook authoritarianism. People are no longer willing to be patient, because life only lasts for so long, and whatever incrementalist changes we have accomplished in the last two decades are now in dire threat of disappearing into the void.

They are getting desperate. We are getting desperate. I don't hold the belief that violence should be the first resort to action, and there was a time when I'd seen people itching to get a punch in years back, before there was a concept of Trump actually becoming President. Times now though are very different; the beginning of 2017 is a different world from the beginning of 2015. To those who are marginalized, we are seeing that violence may soon be the only thing that will affect any real change.

I want to exhaust every single possible nonviolent opportunity before the hammer falls. I see some promise from other movements and other ideas, but even I am beginning to lose hope in them being meaningful. I'm a trans woman, I haven't had a job in years, I've been suffering chronic pain and a litany of mental illnesses for almost as long, and my current living situation forces me to choose between living with an abusive nigh-Trump supporting parent, or starving to death on the streets. I will be soon moving to another state where I may or may not be able to get the same coverage that I have with New York City's Medicaid program. This is all an extremely delicate house of cards that, if it topples, I will have utterly no idea how to progress from there.

There are multitudes of people who have even worse situations than I do.

Imagine their pain. Imagine their desperation. Imagine why all of this would lead them to believe that the system will never work for them. Imagine them hearing outsiders to their living situations telling them to be absolute saints, where those outsiders are living in what may as well be paradises compared to theirs'.

Imagine the utter contempt they will not only have, then, to the system, but also to those who will not offer an inch of sympathy to them.

Then you will imagine only a fraction of a percentage of the frustration they and others more privileged than them, but still belonging in their groups, have felt for generations in this country. This fury, if unaddressed by those in power, will lead to a dark path no matter what any of us believe or decide.

Also to be honest, anyone who would sympathize with Spencer and Nazism simply because he was decked on camera ... well, I question their intelligence and authenticity to anything liberal or left to begin with.

Democracy permits transfer of power, and compromise in policy, through peaceful means. In a democracy, people with a political agenda can generally get what they want, or at least some of what they want, without violence.

That is a very simple principle. Take that principle away, and you remove the astonishing level of 'peacefulness' that prevails in democratic politics.

When the reaction to protestors is simply to ignore them at best, or kill them at worst, and to deliberately accelerate projects that are being protested... protesting is useless. When the reaction to an opposition politician getting elected is to 'hollow out' the powers of her office so that she can't change anything... elections are useless. When the courts have been packed thanks to a deliberate strategy of obstructing judicial appointments until such time as they could be filled by an ultimately corrupt member of one's own party... the courts become useless.

And all that remains to the starving peasants is to storm the Bastille.

Are we in that place yet? No. But could we go to that place? Yes.

Exactly these.

I simply think Dragon Angel is seriously overestimating how close we are to that point, and has an overly broad definition of what warrants political violence.

Honestly if you don't consider facing mass starvation and destitution for not only yourself, your entire family, but also your entire community enough to be at least a spark, then it's going to be almost impossible to drive in this point into you.

That's the question - defensive necessities. And even "preemptive" can be debated since what should be counted as the aggressive violence done by the oppressors? They don't have to barge into the homes of orphaned minorities and let the flamethrowers loose. We've seen for the longest time that they can get away with other ways of screwing people over.

It's happened for so long in the forms of institutionalized racism / sexism / homophobia / transphobia / ableism / etc. whatever isms. Eventually, the oppressed become weary of being oppressed, and ... everything I said above.

[Shroom Man 777]

I subscribe to what Martin Luther King said. Fuck, if y'all appalled at this, considering what's been done and what's still being done, people should count 'emselves lucky if they ain't gonna end up like Anastasia, and I'm not talking about that Disney animated musical....\

(I know it's not Disney.)

[K. A. Pital]

I think that there is, in practice, a very long way down before people take up arms.

It is not that they are not justified to take them up earlier. They are. But the practice shows that the level of destitution should be very high for a rebellion to happen. I have waited for a revolution among the destitute most of my life.

It did not happen until now, although the places I've seen and conditions people live in do warrant resistance at least and revolution at best.

The US is itself a First World country - a rich country. The road of degradation will be a long and painful one. Revolutions usually fail in richer nations. Fascism, on the other hand, often succeeds.

[Simon_Jester]

The last time that organized movements in the US started getting violent over politics* is well within living memory, if not our living memory**.

There was violence of this type in the '60s. There wasn't very much of it, but that was in large part because political figures like Martin Luther King emerged to channel the political pressure in non-destructive directions. Youths who felt like the bureaucratic military-corporate-political system wasn't listening to them could point to establishment politicians that did listen, even if they didn't listen all the time or didn't consistently win their elections.

There was violence of this type in the 70s- most of it racial, an aftermath of Martin Luther King being assassinated, of nobody else stepping up in his place, and of a perception that 15-20 years after Brown v. Board, America was still segregated. That violence gradually faded for a variety of reasons. But it could come back.

I would not say it is automatically necessary for a country to experience the full degree of possible 'degradation' before its citizens start fighting back. All that is required is that a significant minority see no plausible peaceful course of action that leads to necessary change.

I could give examples. And I could give counterexamples. Times when a revolution didn't happen, not because circumstances didn't warrant it, but because the citizenry didn't really believe it was necessary, because they had a peaceful way outward and upward. But it would be a major digression.

_________________

*(Not policy, I'm not talking Iraq. Politics, the internal ongoing debate about what the country should do, getting violent, because of one faction deciding that words cannot do what must be done. Deciding to resort to the bullet box instead of the ballot box).

**(by which I mean me, Stas, Shroom, Dragon Angel, TRR, and while I suspect Joun Lord is under forty or so I could be wrong).

---

I subscribe to what Martin Luther King said. Fuck, if y'all appalled at this, considering what's been done and what's still being done, people should count 'emselves lucky if they ain't gonna end up like Anastasia, and I'm not talking about that Disney animated musical...

That is, I think, sort of the point. Being appalled at this is our insurance against things that are really, truly, deeply appalling. As I noted, nobody stopped Hitler- because people were not appalled at the first things he did. At the first rounds of oppression and suppression, at the creation of the organs of further tyranny.

As a direct consequence of this... he became powerful enough that he could engage in further oppression, and further, and further, until he had done so much and so horribly that it became this sort of bizarre byword for insane, massive, excessive oppression and evil and cruelty. Cruelty so terrible that no merely ordinary 'dictatorship' could begin to match it.

And nobody within his own society stopped him.

Why? Because their allergic reaction did not trigger. Like the story of the frog in the pot of water brought to a slow boil, at no point in the process did they go "this is intolerable" and take immediate, drastic action to change the situation.

Being appalled at comparatively minor acts of tyranny is healthy and good, because this is the one vaccine that we can hope to use to protect us from greater acts of tyranny.

[Shroom Man 777]

I meant appalled at the outcry and outbursts of the aggrieved vulnerable groups tired of the BS, I mean. If people are appalled at windows being smashed, they don't consider the notion that if things were directly proportional, Romanov-like conclusions would've been what lots of people had coming for a looong time.