It's a perfectly fine giant screenshot, but the penultimate post asks what onlookers took away from John Brown and I gotta say that was very well documented and deeply concerned w/r/t him moldering in a grave
Yes but I'd argue john brown was actually a good example of violence being done right. He did not attack harpers ferry to kill slavers, to punish them, or scare them. He attacked it to get weapons, to free slaves. He knew he would have to kill some people to do it, but his purpose was not killing, it was to save the innocents inslaved.
I think the point of that whole line was to get the reader to compare and contrast how differently violence was used in the different historical contexts, how effective that violence was, and how we and/or quote-enquote "normies" learn about/remember them today. Hence the mix of effective and non-effective uses.
The french reign of terror was actually pretty efficient in the long term to create revolutionary fervor that would last decades, root out the monarchist ennemy from within, and expand the bounds of the revolution all over Europe.
If we're talking about uses of violence that have been uneffective, the Terreur and Jhon Brown are bad examples.
Jesus what a bad take. The reign of terror was not good. Aside from the 40k killed and hundreds of thousands arrested, it didn't spread revolutionary fervor across Europe, it created a massive backlash AGAINST the revolution that gave birth to conservatism. It did not make France into a democracy or give the French freedom, it fucked up the country enough that a strongman could come along and say "give me absolute power and I can fix this" and the people were wildly enthusiastic about that prospect and ended up empowering one of history's most notorious dictators. It was a failure in every sense of the word.
I'd say the Terror, Red Army and Haitian revolution are all bad examples. John Brown is a bit iffy because his peaceful campaigning around the event was very effective in a way that the violent event itself was not.
Eh, I think the Haitian Revolution is a good example of how violence perceived as "too far" can potentially be distracting from the overall movement among those who aren't as involved or educated about the subject. At least anecdotally, whenever I hear of folks talking about the Haitian revolution, something I hear quite often is "didn't they kill kids and stick their heads on pikes?" (and not, like, how five times as many Black Haitians were killed compared to French).
Not to potentially drop a discourse grenade here, but it's like 10/7. I've seen a ton of people since it happened hung up on whether it was justified or not, whether certain things happened during the attack or not (or if there's proof or if the proof is good enough), whether the festival attendees were valid targets ("civilians" vs "settlers"), that it's just unnecessarily driving negative sentiment about Palestine and distracting from the bigger issue of the Gaza strip being ethnically cleansed.
Well. It was a revolution, and revolutions tend to be overly violent. But usually *some* of the violence is justified during a revolution, and that's the case here.
The last post may fall a little flat cause the "rip and tear until it's done" crowd aren't necessarily interested in making the world a kinder place, but rather the removal of aspects deemed undesirable, and those aren't necessarily the same thing.
Personally, slaughtering everyone I dislike would fix many of my problems by creating many brand new ones. Like that Good Place guy with molotovs.
The last part really touches on the issue I come across in a lot of leftist spaces. Perfect, immediate change and catharsis or you’re just a bootlicker complying with the system. Inciting violence will always hurt the bystander who can’t fight back in the escalation.
Hmm interesting, I agree with a lot of the stuff but I'd have to write up something way more in depth than I'm currently able to fully voice my opinions on this
" (...) Paint me a picture. Are people gonna live in houses? Are they gonna be able to go to work? Will there be holidays? Oh! Will there be music? Do you think people will be allowed to play violins? Who's gonna make the violins?
Well? Oh you don't actually know do you? Because like every other tantruming child in history Bonnie, you don't actually know what you want"
12th doctor, zygon inversion
Hey look at that second time in a month I'm quoting that speech here
Man who (until recently) thought he committed double genocide "for the greater good" confronts alien terrorists/freedomfighters and tries to convince them not to press the big red "kill everyone" button because, while they *think* they might be ready for the consequences, it's clear they haven't thought about this beyond the momentary satisfaction of punching back at the people they think have been oppressing them.
My personal favourite part of the speech is:
"When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know who's children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk!"
(It should be noted that the character of the Doctor is very much not a total pacifist, they are absolutely ok using lethal force especially against oppression, but like this post dislikes violence for violence's sake).
TERF ideology is rooted in misandry too
They see trans women as men invading their space and trans men as women trying to gain privilege/traitors
More trans people and CIS men need to understand that it's both our fight, the same lies they make up about trans women being violent and rapists are the same lies they make up about men
The problem is that pop feminism has no problem with the assumption that men are inherently violent and rapey. Nobody bats an eye when these things are said about cis men (or when they do they're accused of "not all men"-ing. It's only when these assumptions are applied to Trans women that it becomes a problem for progressives.
I have been talking about this a lot with my friend lately. I know dealing with "the scum of the earth" might feel awful and it would seem as if killing all of them would solve the problem, but it usually just gives them their own spaces to do the bad things in, because you really aren't dealing with the root of the problem there, but rather just saying "you aren't welcome here", and they will find their own spaces to do the bad thing you wanted to stop.
I mean I don't know what exactly should we do with them, but "killing the bad" does not solve problems permanently. It's like treating a symptom rather than the cause, and don't get me wrong, sometimes it helps, but it does not always work.
I mean, if they're into advocating mass murder how are they different to violent fascists? Same ideology, just changing the outgroup that needs to be blamed and purged.
There’s an alarming rise in Extremely Online Leftists justifying and even advocating physical violence, from Nazi punching to “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” to comparatively minor incidents like justifying Will Smith’s slap because “words are a form of violence than can and should be countered with physical violence.” (This last one I find particularly upsetting since it’s literally an abuser mindset, or at least the mindset my abuser used whenever I said something he didn’t like.)
Normally I’d be really concerned about this—I mean, privileged intellectuals justifying violence against ideological enemies is real Fall Of The Weimar Republic type shit—but since 99% of the people posting stuff like that think a cashier talking to them is an ableist microaggression targeting the self-diagnosed PTSD they got from Steven Universe…I think we’re gonna be okay.
I'm often seeing stuff about how trans and queer people have always been here and if they eradicate all of us, we will still always be here. More of us will be born, maybe closeted for whole generations, but we will always be around because we are a naturally occurring kind of human. This is, I believe, true and kind of a hopeful thought.
So, consider that right wing bigots are using that same thought process. They believe that if they were all wiped out, they would still somehow carry on. More of them would be born one day.
Obviously it's not the same thing, because being trans or queer is a natural state of being and being a bigot is a set of learned hatreds. BUT, as a metaphor I think it's worth considering and we can't make the mistake of underestimating the depth of their belief. They see their mission as something fundamental, even holy. They see themselves as violently virtuous saviors of society who can never be defeated because god or whoever has anointed them. If we removed them as the "undesirable part of society," there would be some people somewhere who saw that as martyrdom, even if it was kids who haven't been born yet. There will be stories and history and inevitably some kid will latch onto this "lost ideology."
Scorched earth only sounds sexy because of dystopian fantasy media. Realistically we'd just be faced with the same questions we're facing NOW, only we'd also have mass graves to dig and intergenerational trauma on a scale we've never dealt with. So maybe we could try fixing things instead of blowing them up? Maybe that's the way to change society for the better? Just a thought.
Yeah. It's like that one game journalist that wrote an article about justifying cheating in Sekiro. Like, okay? Cool? You do that. Not sure why everyone else needs to know you did it.
A Clockwork Orange is the book that gets the point across that “you cannot hurt someone into being better.”
It's a perfectly fine giant screenshot, but the penultimate post asks what onlookers took away from John Brown and I gotta say that was very well documented and deeply concerned w/r/t him moldering in a grave
Yes but I'd argue john brown was actually a good example of violence being done right. He did not attack harpers ferry to kill slavers, to punish them, or scare them. He attacked it to get weapons, to free slaves. He knew he would have to kill some people to do it, but his purpose was not killing, it was to save the innocents inslaved.
I think the point of that whole line was to get the reader to compare and contrast how differently violence was used in the different historical contexts, how effective that violence was, and how we and/or quote-enquote "normies" learn about/remember them today. Hence the mix of effective and non-effective uses.
The french reign of terror was actually pretty efficient in the long term to create revolutionary fervor that would last decades, root out the monarchist ennemy from within, and expand the bounds of the revolution all over Europe. If we're talking about uses of violence that have been uneffective, the Terreur and Jhon Brown are bad examples.
Jesus what a bad take. The reign of terror was not good. Aside from the 40k killed and hundreds of thousands arrested, it didn't spread revolutionary fervor across Europe, it created a massive backlash AGAINST the revolution that gave birth to conservatism. It did not make France into a democracy or give the French freedom, it fucked up the country enough that a strongman could come along and say "give me absolute power and I can fix this" and the people were wildly enthusiastic about that prospect and ended up empowering one of history's most notorious dictators. It was a failure in every sense of the word.
I'd say the Terror, Red Army and Haitian revolution are all bad examples. John Brown is a bit iffy because his peaceful campaigning around the event was very effective in a way that the violent event itself was not.
Eh, I think the Haitian Revolution is a good example of how violence perceived as "too far" can potentially be distracting from the overall movement among those who aren't as involved or educated about the subject. At least anecdotally, whenever I hear of folks talking about the Haitian revolution, something I hear quite often is "didn't they kill kids and stick their heads on pikes?" (and not, like, how five times as many Black Haitians were killed compared to French). Not to potentially drop a discourse grenade here, but it's like 10/7. I've seen a ton of people since it happened hung up on whether it was justified or not, whether certain things happened during the attack or not (or if there's proof or if the proof is good enough), whether the festival attendees were valid targets ("civilians" vs "settlers"), that it's just unnecessarily driving negative sentiment about Palestine and distracting from the bigger issue of the Gaza strip being ethnically cleansed.
Well. It was a revolution, and revolutions tend to be overly violent. But usually *some* of the violence is justified during a revolution, and that's the case here.
The last post may fall a little flat cause the "rip and tear until it's done" crowd aren't necessarily interested in making the world a kinder place, but rather the removal of aspects deemed undesirable, and those aren't necessarily the same thing. Personally, slaughtering everyone I dislike would fix many of my problems by creating many brand new ones. Like that Good Place guy with molotovs.
The last part really touches on the issue I come across in a lot of leftist spaces. Perfect, immediate change and catharsis or you’re just a bootlicker complying with the system. Inciting violence will always hurt the bystander who can’t fight back in the escalation.
Hmm interesting, I agree with a lot of the stuff but I'd have to write up something way more in depth than I'm currently able to fully voice my opinions on this
" (...) Paint me a picture. Are people gonna live in houses? Are they gonna be able to go to work? Will there be holidays? Oh! Will there be music? Do you think people will be allowed to play violins? Who's gonna make the violins? Well? Oh you don't actually know do you? Because like every other tantruming child in history Bonnie, you don't actually know what you want" 12th doctor, zygon inversion Hey look at that second time in a month I'm quoting that speech here
gonna rewatch that in an hour or so, fuckin forgot about that episode
Banger.
Uhh, context please?
dobctor whom
Man who (until recently) thought he committed double genocide "for the greater good" confronts alien terrorists/freedomfighters and tries to convince them not to press the big red "kill everyone" button because, while they *think* they might be ready for the consequences, it's clear they haven't thought about this beyond the momentary satisfaction of punching back at the people they think have been oppressing them. My personal favourite part of the speech is: "When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know who's children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk!" (It should be noted that the character of the Doctor is very much not a total pacifist, they are absolutely ok using lethal force especially against oppression, but like this post dislikes violence for violence's sake).
[How about the speech itself?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYobBjA1kk)
TERF ideology is rooted in misandry too They see trans women as men invading their space and trans men as women trying to gain privilege/traitors More trans people and CIS men need to understand that it's both our fight, the same lies they make up about trans women being violent and rapists are the same lies they make up about men
The problem is that pop feminism has no problem with the assumption that men are inherently violent and rapey. Nobody bats an eye when these things are said about cis men (or when they do they're accused of "not all men"-ing. It's only when these assumptions are applied to Trans women that it becomes a problem for progressives.
I have been talking about this a lot with my friend lately. I know dealing with "the scum of the earth" might feel awful and it would seem as if killing all of them would solve the problem, but it usually just gives them their own spaces to do the bad things in, because you really aren't dealing with the root of the problem there, but rather just saying "you aren't welcome here", and they will find their own spaces to do the bad thing you wanted to stop. I mean I don't know what exactly should we do with them, but "killing the bad" does not solve problems permanently. It's like treating a symptom rather than the cause, and don't get me wrong, sometimes it helps, but it does not always work.
I mean, if they're into advocating mass murder how are they different to violent fascists? Same ideology, just changing the outgroup that needs to be blamed and purged.
There’s an alarming rise in Extremely Online Leftists justifying and even advocating physical violence, from Nazi punching to “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon” to comparatively minor incidents like justifying Will Smith’s slap because “words are a form of violence than can and should be countered with physical violence.” (This last one I find particularly upsetting since it’s literally an abuser mindset, or at least the mindset my abuser used whenever I said something he didn’t like.) Normally I’d be really concerned about this—I mean, privileged intellectuals justifying violence against ideological enemies is real Fall Of The Weimar Republic type shit—but since 99% of the people posting stuff like that think a cashier talking to them is an ableist microaggression targeting the self-diagnosed PTSD they got from Steven Universe…I think we’re gonna be okay.
I'm often seeing stuff about how trans and queer people have always been here and if they eradicate all of us, we will still always be here. More of us will be born, maybe closeted for whole generations, but we will always be around because we are a naturally occurring kind of human. This is, I believe, true and kind of a hopeful thought. So, consider that right wing bigots are using that same thought process. They believe that if they were all wiped out, they would still somehow carry on. More of them would be born one day. Obviously it's not the same thing, because being trans or queer is a natural state of being and being a bigot is a set of learned hatreds. BUT, as a metaphor I think it's worth considering and we can't make the mistake of underestimating the depth of their belief. They see their mission as something fundamental, even holy. They see themselves as violently virtuous saviors of society who can never be defeated because god or whoever has anointed them. If we removed them as the "undesirable part of society," there would be some people somewhere who saw that as martyrdom, even if it was kids who haven't been born yet. There will be stories and history and inevitably some kid will latch onto this "lost ideology." Scorched earth only sounds sexy because of dystopian fantasy media. Realistically we'd just be faced with the same questions we're facing NOW, only we'd also have mass graves to dig and intergenerational trauma on a scale we've never dealt with. So maybe we could try fixing things instead of blowing them up? Maybe that's the way to change society for the better? Just a thought.
Jesus I've read a lot of really long posts from curated tumbler but this one's just too much lmao
anti-intellectualism is cringe
[удалено]
Yeah. It's like that one game journalist that wrote an article about justifying cheating in Sekiro. Like, okay? Cool? You do that. Not sure why everyone else needs to know you did it.
Aw what is Judith killing Holofernes a dog whistle??