Comments on: Violence is sometimes the answer

By: dmm

dmm — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:37:46 +0000

I’m one of those people who will never sit still for a beat down of any sort under color of “authority”. Cops have turned into thugs, and do the bidding of sadists and totalitarians instead of protecting and serving as we were once led to believe was their primary function.

When it gets right down to it, folks, YOU are responsible for how much sh*t you let someone dump all over you, cop or not.

I’ve seen enough, personally – it’s all over the internet thanks to citizen journalism – and I WILL protect myself from these b*stards. No doubt, no question, no hesitation any more.

By: Global Feminist Link Love: May 17 – 23 « Gender Across Borders

Global Feminist Link Love: May 17 – 23 « Gender Across Borders — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:49:54 +0000

[...] Violence is sometimes the answer (The Pursuit of Harpyness) “I don’t know if this woman’s actions will spark a rebellion or if it’s just an isolated incident I read about online. I do know not everyone is privileged enough to sit around quoting Gandhi at people in situations like the one women in Saudi are facing.” [...]

By: joe sam

joe sam — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:41:27 +0000

Great quote danz and I totally agree that violence begets violence and nonviolence is the answer but i think that idea is a little oversimplified. I feel that oppression is at the root of virtually all violence and wealth disparity is at the root of oppression. Sure nonviolence is the answer but can you convince a person who is oppressed and angry about it that nonviolence is the answer? The sad part is that if I’m correct about violence being related to income disparity, we can expect our children to grow up in the most violent era of history.

By: -danz-

-danz- — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:28:21 +0000

Actually, Gandhi would probably agree with you:

“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally
assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me
killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”

M. K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962. pp. 156-57.

By: Colin Phillips

Colin Phillips — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:17:48 +0000

What you’re looking for is called the Principle of Non- Agression. From Wikipedia: “It holds that “aggression”, which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

If this woman felt threatened (and, who are we kidding, when you’re powerless, you’re always threatened), it is morally legitimate for her to protect herself

By: laprofe63

laprofe63 — Mon, 24 May 2010 00:52:02 +0000

I hope that the woman in Saudi Arabia doesn’t end up spending years in jail. But I have to wonder, what was she thinking? I mean, last I heard, she lives in a country where women aren’t permitted to drive! …where two single people, being perfectly heterosexual even, aren’t allowed to be alone together, hardly a place of lax social laws. What would possess her to hit an officer in such a country?

I’m not sure I understand things clearly. Are we getting the whole story? Her boyfriend must have had the shit kicked out of him.

As for the bigger question of violence to achieve liberation. It’s hard to wean off of violence as a tool, once it has worked. So, violence begets more violence… only non-violence can stop it.

By: joe sam

joe sam — Sun, 23 May 2010 17:10:46 +0000

I would like to use this post to condone violence if the end justifies the means. forces of oppression are causing virtually all of the worlds violence either directly or indirectly. To violently overthrow these people and make a more peaceful world would indeed be noble. It may be possible to reshape the world after a violent revolution, in such a way that violence would be almost nonexistent. Anyone with a slim amount of knowledge of world history would have to admit that violent revolution is much more effective than nonviolent revolution. I guess I’m trying to say that violence is evil but it can be the only way that greater evils can be stopped.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Sat, 22 May 2010 00:27:57 +0000

One very powerful reason King and Ghandi were successful is that those in power knew quite well what the alternative was. In India, freedom fighters were blowing up trains and rioting in the streets; in the US, white kids who could get away with it more easily were also demonstrating and rioting. It’s easier to be effective with non-violent techniques when you know that someone is going to make you look like the better alternative.

I don’t believe in seeking or provoking violence. But we libs act like it’s just words with the right, and it isn’t. They are willing to do what they say they want to do. They will forcefully hinder our access to abortion, voting, public assembly, free speech-you name it. They would be perfectly happy to throw us all in jail or revoke our citizenship. And our being too fastidious and pure to admit it doesn’t make it not true.

Our first resort should always be to use all the legal, peaceful means in our power to protect ourselves and our rights-absolutely. But be aware that the wing nuts know how reluctant we are to back up our words. The best thing we can do to protect the things we value is to let the right know that we are not just pious sentiment. No, we shouldn’t provoke violence. But we should damn well let everyone know that we’re not too good to fight if we must.

By: sybann

sybann — Fri, 21 May 2010 22:09:18 +0000

Sometimes violence is the ONLY thing abusers can understand. But commenters may be reacting to the Jez culture when they qualify their responses of support. I’m pretty notorious for filterless expression and am frequently disemvowelled when I say someone should get fired (YES!) for being biased or an ass in the workplace. Or when I say bigots shouldn’t have children (!).

You know we are constantly reminded we have to be sweetness and light or we’ll be dealt with harshly. Bit of a dicotomy, no?

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Fri, 21 May 2010 15:40:12 +0000

100% agree, ausgezeichnet.