Sometimes Violence is Good


Fat-Punisher's avatar
I know this may seem ridiculous but why exactly do we pretend violence is always bad?

When I look at human history and I see positive change, it literally always comes by force.

Bad people don't like change, they want things to be the way they are forever. They never want to move forward. Never progress.

It seems to me like violence and force are the only way you can accomplish positive change on a broad political level, because people will resist peaceful methods forever.

Lets look at the civil war for example.
If you're not a racist then you would obviously see the Freeing of slaves as a positive thing wouldn't you?
And how did that come about? Civil War.

Half a million people fought to the death to finally make a change.

lets look at WW2
Does anybody honestly think that the Nazi's would have stopped unless violence was enacted upon them? The answer is no.

WW2 was only 75 years ago. That is within a single human life time. There are people today who still believe in the ideology of the losing side.
and there's still people who think the American South will rise again.


I look at the political landscape in America and I see things at a standstill, endless resistance. and I believe we will be stuck in a stand still forever unless some sort of action is taken.
one step forward one step back, constant regression and baby steps.

to me I think private healthcare in the USA is a human rights violation on the same level as Genocide, it's a Genocide of the lower class.
But nothing is changing is it?



I HATE how people think that you must always be peaceful and civil. That you're somehow a lesser person if you get angry, or if you lose your cool.
How can I be expected to stay calm and complacent when what I see Genocide and human rights violations in my country and half the people don't give a fuck or support it?
Where is the line supposed to be drawn?

Violence is only okay when it's against people YOU disagree with?

Of course I believe that, because the people I disagree with support Genocide, so isn't it fair that I would want violence against them???


What do you think?
Is violence okay sometimes?
Do you think that Violence is okay to prevent human rights violations?

Personally I don't view right wingers / Trump supporters as people.
I don't value their opinions, and I'm not interested in having a debate about healthcare with them, because they are firmly planted on the "Genocide" point of view.
Comments234
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
desbest's avatar
You gave bad examples.
Slavery being abolished happened due to white people campaigning. It wasn't due to black people, so the ones with the power ended it due to the activism of white people.
Also it was Hitler who decided to invade other countries, so the invaded countries are going to fight back. It only became a World War because Germany had Soviet Russia as an ally to help them fight the war, so other countries thought, "if multiple countries are going to team up to fight a war, then I need to team up with other countries too.

I do not believe that we should use violence to get our political aims done. You say yes. What you are describing is that terrorism is good.
The problem with legalising terrorism is four things.
1. It causes violence and death.
2. It attacks the infrastructure of a country
3 It can destablise a country so it is left without a functioning government. There will be anarchy, private police, martial law or the lack of government will be inevatibly be replaced with a new government that is worse than the previous government.
4. If terrorism is legal, then not all the political aims it is used to achieve would be good. ISIS would cause violence to get their political aims done, and ISIS is much worse than the governments of Britain and America. If it was legal, most of the terrorism would be for causes which make society worse.

Protests do work and can work. If they didn't work, dictatorships wouldn't make protesting illegal.
Fat-Punisher's avatar

legalizing terrorism? How on earth did you extrapolate that?


Where did i ever say i wanted legal terrorism lmao.


I only support violence if it's done by people who share my own values.

desbest's avatar

Why should violence committed to advance a political aim be allowed if it agrees with your values, but not if it agrees with other people's values?

What makes you the authority on morality? The law has to apply equally to everyone.


But if you're so persistent with your opinions, then violence should be allowed if it's done by people who share MY views, and NOT yours.

Fat-Punisher's avatar

"then violence should be allowed if it's done by people who share MY views, and NOT yours."


Then we are enemies, prepare for violence.


my views are racial equality, gay rights and womens rights, so you disagree with all of those things and you're a bigot?

desbest's avatar

In 2020, what social movements are defined as equality do not always advocate for equality in their actions.

For example, affirmative action and banning men from paying for prostitutes while allowing women to sell their bodies as prostitutes, is wrong and has nothing to do with equality.

Fat-Punisher's avatar

I'm a feminist.


I don't support affirmative action.


I support full legalization of prostitution.


So what exactly is the problem?

desbest's avatar

Whilst I agree with you on being against affirmative action and legalising prostitution, the problem here is that I'm not a feminist.

View all replies
6Cracks's avatar
"It seems to me like violence and force are the only way you can accomplish positive change on a broad political level, because people will resist peaceful methods forever."


www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3N_2…
Fat-Punisher's avatar

Why did you send me this?


I don't like Hitler, he's a faggot

6Cracks's avatar

Well, violence against political opposition is a key move in the fascist playbook.

Fat-Punisher's avatar

Violence against the opposition is a key move in the ART OF WAR.


lmao.

The Nazi's didn't invent violence..

6Cracks's avatar

No, in political discourse you use your words to portray your point. Unless you believe you've come to some philosophical truth that you believe your ideals are legitimate enough to kill over. Genocide and violence will continue to be a bad thing

Fat-Punisher's avatar

okay well keep using your words and just let the Nazi's gas you.

6Cracks's avatar

That would imply that your ideals are morally superior to that of the nazis. You're effectively justifying genocide which from any perspective is by far the most cartoonishly evil thing you can do.


The nazis weren't insane bloodthirsty murderers. they were normal people lured into an evil ideology. They were corrupted and allured by the promises of an evil man. To demonize fascists while fully aware of what they represent, one would have to honestly look at themselves in the mirror and beg the following question; If I was at my lowest possible point, would I be able to turn away a helping hand that promised to make it all go away?



Fascism, Nazism, Islamic extremism, white nationalism, radical feminism, inceldom.


They come as your friends, dressed in a nice suit and tie they promise you that there are enemies out to get you. Plotting against you keeping you down. And instead of those being the flaws of society that collectively harm us all (though in varying degrees) fascists give you a specific target. And claim that the only possible way for the world to be fixed is the eradication of these undesirable elements.


For the nazi's it was the jews who "ruled the banks and kept the german man down"


For the incel, it's the attractive men who hog all the women to themselves.


For the Islamic extremist, it's the perceived moral decadence of western society corrupting the world and robbing it of the values they believe humanity should have.


For the white nationalists, it's African Americans. Driving up crime rates not because they take part in a system that is heavily stacked against them. But because they're incapable of living in a civilized society because of their "Culture" so they have to be "Relocated" for their own "Good"


For radical feminists. It's men and transexuals. All men regardless of their awareness of it. Consciously oppress women and make every effort to do so. woman who care about the difficulties that men face are misogynists... Tansgenders don't actually exist they're just misogynistic men pretending to be woman and woman with internalized misogyny..



All of these ideals look rightful insane to a normal person; So does taking drugs the issue is. At one point or another, someone is going to be in a position where they shrug their shoulders and say. "Sure"

View all replies
SirEdigarious's avatar
Violence as means to a peaceful resolution or maybe as a form of punishment for severe crime could be acceptable. I think most ppl would understand that logic. 

(I say as I get glared at by a hypothetical vegan Avacado sandwich eater)


also, as much as I love mlk,jr, there’s some hidden history that implies that malcom x and his violent protests caused segregation to end, because the law was scared of him, so they gave in to mlk and his peaceful marches.

(don’t know how true that is, just some stuff from long ago)
Fat-Punisher's avatar

Malcom X exists to scare white people.


and MLK is there to ease their mind.


good cop bad cop routine really. Malcom made MLK look at lot more reasonable to people who were on the fence.

SirEdigarious's avatar

Yeah, that’s what I meant to get across!

Fat-Punisher's avatar

I'll keep my AR-15


And still vote for Joe Biden.


:D

it's one of the few things we get right here in America.

AgnosticDragon's avatar
"Violence is only okay when it's against people YOU disagree with?

Of course I believe that, because the people I disagree with support Genocide, so isn't it fair that I would want violence against them???"

That is a pretty bold generalization.

"Personally I don't view right wingers / Trump supporters as people.
I don't value their opinions, and I'm not interested in having a debate about healthcare with them, because they are firmly planted on the 'Genocide' point of view."

I don't like Trump either, but his followers are a lot more diverse than you suggest. I know some fairly tolerant people who voted for Donald Trump, for various reasons.
GameTrek's avatar
Violence is the last thing a person should resort to. Yes it could settle things but when it comes to people it is only because things I have reached a breaking point.

Like we could just say "People are being people" when it comes to the law and what is right or wrong but that is not the reality with people. People loop hole through the law all the times and their is nothing wrong with that until it affects you personally.

............

Civil War was fought ( not because of slavery ) but because of income value. It was too much to feed, cloth, bath, and take care of people and call them slaves. They gain access to your house, and to your life and could also handle money among other important goods. 

Central Banking Party = Jewish Money Lenders (One of many to make income of DEBT and War ) , ideas fell into the Whig party and became the Republicans who recruited pro jim-crow/segregation tatics itself. Unlike Australia that made people wed other people the US instead was to

Not give them any real opportunities
Pay them unfairly 
Not give them good health
Not give them anything good

That is the problems that persisted ( even till this day ) after the Civil-War.

Raising of standards ( like education ) which only went up due to debt
The fake image of black people and watermelon AkA rap hip-hop culture

Anything that pushes people of different race groups apart.

.............

World War 2 - was basically USA knew about Pearl Harbor attack .
The original James Bond story was that a M16 spy from Britain found out about the plans and was stopped by agents from the US to leave US shores.

After which US troops alongside USSR troops stormed Europe

US was able to test out the Nuclear Bomb on Japan.

That being said with Jewish Money Lenders ( Fed / Red Shield Bankers ) the USA used war as a money making thing.

CIA bombed a bridge in Asia somewhere just to get the nation to request US protection.

France did not want to participate in the invasion of Iraq and many years they were bombed.

Britain recently had a false flag attack

Gulf of Tonka/Tonga incident which obviously was an attempt to get USA troops to mobilize.

War is a business not a need

Korean war could have been prevented if the US had kept Korea as part of Japan and let them gain freedoms from Japan ( as with Pakistan ). US gave crap weapons to South Korea and USSR gave big weapons to North Korea.
US pushed for executing communist supporters That is why the North Attacked!!!!

Vietnam war was a continuation of the Korean war

Gulf war / Desert storm was because Britian ( England ) on purposely held on to Kuwait. Millions of dollars was poured into Kuwait to modernize ( white wash, westernize it ) US pour money into it as well. Kuwait held more then %90 of Iraq oil reserves. If Kuwait had been re-absorbed back into Iraq.
Iraq = modern day Dubai
Fat-Punisher's avatar

"I know some fairly tolerant people who voted for Donald Trump, for various reasons."


Tolerant dumb people maybe.


not worth my time because those people are fucking idiots.

AvSkyggene's avatar
We needed a purge of the retarded to have prevented the rise of fascism in the U.S. But it's too late for that now.
Fat-Punisher's avatar

It's never to late!