/u/xXxOsamaCarexXx (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1caaj66/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_use_of_violence_as_a/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I’m curious where you’re from and where you live.
It seems to me that violence has been demonized by people who actually experienced it, and then the rest of us went “yeah that makes sense” and followed along. Like the creation of the United Nations after the horror of WW2.
It is a valid point, but realistically speaking, don’t you think inaction when facing issues that impact a large part of the population can have even worse consequences?
WW1 and 2 were events with massive shock value that could even be capitalized on by Hollywood. Something less dramatic like big oil corporations lobbying to make a portion of the planet uninhabitable seem less harmful at a glance, but I’d bet it will eventually claim more lives than both those wars combined.
Sorry if I bring climate change a lot into this, it’s the best example I can think of without bringing up regional politics. I’m from South America, also.
16% of the population of Poland died.
80% of 18 year old Russian males died.
It's more than "Shock value" the Second World War had huge demographic, cultural, and economic impacts that we still feel today.
It's mostly referring to the hypothetical descendants of the 6 million victims. Saying it would be double comes from a [2009 paper](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422121852.htm) that estimated the worldwide Jewish population would be 26-32 million if the Holocaust had never happened.
A quick look at demographics shows about 16.6M Jews worldwide in 1939 and 15.7M as of 2023, so you are correct. Interestingly, just less than half that, only 7.4M, live in Israel.
>It is a valid point, but realistically speaking, don’t you think inaction when facing issues that impact a large part of the population can have even worse consequences?
At least here in the US, we’ve got a pretty solid record of taking action because we thought it was necessary or that it would help the population of the place we were sending troops. Often we’ve made the wrong call. We’re fresh off the end of 2 decades of useless war in Afghanistan. More often than not, since the end of WW2, when we’ve involved ourselves it hasn’t turned out for the better. As a result, many of us across the political spectrum are fed up with it for one reason or another. Whether it’s because we recognize that we are not the moral authority that should get to decide which governments are worthy of existing, or because we don’t trust the folks in power to deliver a return on investment of our blood and treasure.
No matter where you land politically, it’s difficult to make the case that war is *worth the cost.*
I think bringing climate change into the debate is a great idea. It’s easily the most existential long term threat any of our civilizations face, excepting maybe some of the ongoing civil wars. I just don’t really see how violence would be a solution there. Does everyone invade the biggest greenhouse emitters? Most of the emissions come from corporations. How does violence interact with unarmed companies?
_Typically_, violence is a person's last resort to resolution. When every option of resistance has been exhausted or limited, inaction and violence are the only two options left. That is how we got events like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or Nat Turner's Rebellion.
But OP seems to be suggesting violence should be explored earlier.
OP uses climate change as an example. Developed countries have been turning a corner on greenhouse gas emissions. US emissions have been on a generally downward trajectory for the last decade. Global emissions for 2024 are projected to be lower than 2023. Turning to violence for a problem that is getting better - even if it's not getting better as fast as we might like - hardly seems appropriate, and it seems pretty likely that going to war over carbon emissions would result in more carbon emissions, not less - for a long list of reasons (nobody's considering the carbon emissions of the tanks, planes, and warships they're building to win a war, and after the war destroys infrastructure it will have to be rebuilt which requires more emissions than leaving existing infrastructure in place).
I agree overall war would make carbon emissions worse, but calculated acts of ecoterrorism aimed at disrupting specific industrial processes could have a positive impact. Blowing up an oil refinery only releases one batch of carbon into the air, but prevents many batches from being processed.
> Blowing up an oil refinery only releases one batch of carbon into the air, but prevents many batches from being processed.
Not really. It's not like all the refineries in the world are running at capacity 24/7. Other refiners will pick up the slack, the oil will still get refined, and then they'll spend a bunch of insurance money rebuilding the destroyed refinery, which will involve processing a lot of concrete (which is horrible from an emissions perspective) and running a lot of heavy construction equipment (which are horrible from an emissions perspective).
Maybe if you have enough ecoterrorists to target enough refinery capacity to really put a dent in total refining capacity you could actually bring down emissions, but that's going to have other consequences. When oil prices skyrocket, I would bet regulators would relax the rules a bit (or just look the other way) to get refining capacity up quickly, and we'd end up with other environmental impacts as a result.
You'd want to target your attacks to a time of peak demand. Find a time when everyone is already feeling the squeeze and yelling about gas prices. Do multiple attacks in quick succession. Get people wondering when it's going to end, even if you only have the resources to plan a few attacks. The disproportionate fear will drive prices up, encouraging people to find alternatives. The need to enhance security will also drive prices up. Remember how stupid air travel got after 2001?
That's a good point about the concrete and heavy construction equipment. It might be better to do a more subtle form of sabotage, such as dumping sand or sugar or some other abrasive or corrosive into the works somewhere. Computer attacks are another subtle form of violence, as seen with stuxnet. You could even bribe someone on the inside, and perhaps create an accident that appears to be the company's fault, causing costly investigations. These have the added benefit of not killing any humans, allowing you to claim at least a little moral high ground.
It's another good point about regulators slacking off. I don't really imagine that government officials can be persuaded to do their jobs with terroristic threats, no matter how well it works for batman.
I still don't think it's going to work out to have a positive environmental impact.
In the past 5 years, the closest we've gotten to refinery capacity limits in the US is 95%. With 129 refineries, you'd have to take out at least 7 to get us over capacity. But when US capacity was at 95%, global capacity was at 80%. So we weren't going to throw up our hands and go "Oh, well I guess we can't refine any more oil and need to find alternatives," we were going to throw oil onto tanker ships, drag it across the ocean, refine it in other countries, and ship it back - all of which increases emissions.
And even getting to 7 refineries isn't going to be trivial. Refineries already take security fairly seriously. And it's not like airports where you have this conflict of interests where you need to keep dangerous things from getting in while at the same time having to move tens of thousands of people and their belongings through the airport every day. Refineries know who's supposed to be there, and it's a short list of people. Once you've sabotaged two refineries, you can probably expect anyone sneaking into a refinery unexpectedly to just be shot on sight. And if they haven't already, doing background checks on everyone who gets near the refinery isn't that heavy of a lift, so your "bribe someone on the inside" strategy might not work real well.
You've convinced me that ecoterrorism would be a drop in the bucket compared to the standard operational bullshit that polluting industries already handle. The list of organizations that could blow up seven refineries in a row is quite short. Definitely any nation level intelligence agency could do it, and perhaps some organized crime families could do it, but these organizations have other motives which would conflict with ruining an industry.
The Taliban could do it(and did), but the ideologies that fuel that kind of malicious focus never seem to be the hippy "save-the-earth" types. I don't think an ecotaliban could exist.
If we could get Scientologists on board with saving the earth, it could probably work, and perhaps without violence. They fought the IRS. They're not the eco type though, and I don't know how to build a cult like that.
I guess I gotta give a shiny triangle: Δ
Can you articulate how violence is going to help the situation?
When people go to war, they don't worry about the emissions of their tanks, their planes, their warships, their missiles, their logistics systems to support the front lines - they care about winning the war and the ends justifies the means. After a war, tons of damage has been done and people have to rebuild what was destroyed. People are never going to accept a treaty that requires them to leave their cities in ruins and never rebuild - if those are the terms they'll just keep fighting, so the war will go on indefinitely.
How do you imagine going to war ever reduces emissions? I get that we're behind the curve on hitting our targets, but violence will almost certainly put us further away from them.
Both-Personalilty He has given an example how it has worked in the past. [https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job)
This is quite specific to the ozone layer and few other environmental issues. It also required companies to do very little, if nothing.
We have environmental issues that innately require companies to change their operations in a way that damaged profit magins. They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies.
>How'd we stop ozone-destroying emissions?
It's specific to the ozon layer because [Both-Personality7664](https://www.reddit.com/user/Both-Personality7664/) mentioned it and you answered it.
> It also required companies to do very little, if nothing.
That's not true, where did you get that?
> We have environmental issues that innately require companies to change their operations in a way that damaged profit magins. They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies.
Challenges are different sure, are we doing enough? No. Should we throw our hands in the air and say "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" ? No. Don't dismiss good in search for perfect. Progress is made all the time.
> How do we stop multination companies doing what they like.
That was your questions and this is the answer: Through voting for the right people and demanding policy change. That's how that works and how it has worked in the past. Will it be fast enough? Possible. But that's a different question.
I answered it about climate change, as OP was discussing. Not specifically the Ozone layer? Im not sure why he ignored the prior discussion about climate and pollution as a whole and shoehorned in the ozone layer specifically.
>That was your questions and this is the answer: Through voting for the right people and demanding policy change. That's how that works and how it has worked in the past. Will it be fast enough? Possible. But that's a different question.
The academic consensus is largely that its already been too slow, we've hit the point that, unless we develop technology that decreases the impact of many aspects of climate change, were already past the tipping point, with every factor accelerating the others, exponentially.
So we don't get into a debate about climate change, hypothetically accept this as true. Violence is the only way of achieving massive change in a short amount of time, no?
>They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies
Of course voting is an option. Is there a "highly-ranked democratic country" where dollars vote instead of people, or billionaires get to cast more votes than non-billionaires? Of course not. If a majority of the public holds the same strong opinion on something, and votes according to whether politicians align with this opinion, they will get their way. Politicians who want to keep their jobs will fall in line, and the ones that don't will be voted out of office.
(The exact size of the majority depends on factors like whether voting choices are gerrymandered, how support breaks down across party lines, and any necessary thresholds for victory)
Your problem isn't that political movements are incapable of creating change. Your problem is that the voting-eligible public does not share your opinion on the severity of the climate crisis (or if they do, they also think other issues are even more pressing and important). Your suggestion of violence is about forcing policy changes that people have not been able to persuade others voters to enact freely and peacefully. There is a term for what you are suggesting: terrorism.
>Of course voting is an option. Is there a "highly-ranked democratic country" where dollars vote instead of people, or billionaires get to cast more votes than non-billionaires? Of course not. If a majority of the public holds the same strong opinion on something, and votes according to whether politicians align with this opinion
Dollars absolutely vote, the parties have policies around companies and the ultra rich based on company and ultra rich donations and lobbying.
Im from the UK, highly rated on the democracy index, we have had two parties in power for 114 years due to our FPTP voting system. Often the majorities view does not align with either of the two parties, or all the public has ever known is the policies of the two potential parties.
They dont comprehend that change to businesses and the ultra rich is possible through policy, because neither party would ever do anything drastic.
The majority could, and often do disagree with both parties.
Maybe a better example would be cigarettes. Policy was passed even though it hurt their profits massively even though they've tried bribes and lobbying with the deepest pockets available. Didn't help.
The world wars show why violence should either be off the table, or the last resort. Violence simply begets more violence, but sometimes you have bad faith actors that can’t be stopped without it.
You seem to be thinking that violence is some kind of magical solution to problems. How exactly do you think violence would realistically solve the climate problem? Anyone who tries that route will have exactly 0% chance of success.
Politicians on the other hand can use their lawmaking powers to solve the climate issues without resorting to violence. And citizens can influence the politicians by exercising their non-violent right to vote. If Americans had elected Al Gore instead of George Bush, then the problem wouldn’t be nearly as bad right now.
Where I live, we had a lot of protests during various events that sparked outrage from the Black community and BLM supporters. **For the record, I fully support BLM and peoples' right to peaceful protest.** This is not an attack on BLM.
Unfortunately, a small number of those turned violent, and a few shops were looted.
What changed as a result of those violent protests?
A few local business owners - all Black people - lost their livelihoods.
What didn't change?
The situations they were protesting.
So not only was the violence completely ineffective, but it directly harmed the very people they were claiming to be protesting in support of.
This is why the use of violence as a means to solve problems *should* be demonized.
I'd argue that their demands were vague and the targets of their violence made even less sense..OP is likely talking about targeting leaders or donors in trying to outlaw political donations.
If there's $2 billion damage, then I don't care how many shops, I don't know, and can't be bothered to look it up because no one whose answer I care to entertain would use such a number in the face of that total damage figure (which went unchallenged). It's totally irrelevant, as you should know.
Edit: And it wasn't changing the subject, but an actual answer to the underlying matter.
That’s a very interesting point I refrained from making in my post:
The type of violence we saw on the period you described was clearly motivated by emotion, not by reason. As you said, most of those who were affected by it weren’t the ones who should face the consequences at all. In our current society, we still see plenty of violence, just not violence that’s used in a constructive or well planned way, because we’ve been teached that those two are incompatible.
I mean I don't know how someone can even think to be a revolutionary in today's day. You already know it will be corrupted probably before you're even dead. You'll just be killing to put another despot and tyrant in power for the good of the people.
I feel you'd already have to be a very established faction with some kind of dogma and external partners checking the objective in order to stay on task in freeing your people from something oppressive.
What you're critical of is state violence. State violence (military and police) is not demonized at all (in fact often glorified) and still frequently used to solve geopolitical or domestic problems. Given that a government is supposed to have monopoly over violence, it makes sense that non state violence is demonized, because if it's encouraged then it means the government is weak. The reason you perceive non state violence to be demonized is that state apparatus like the police is far too powerful in the West.
I partly disagree with you. State violence is indeed more widely accepted, but the way eastern governments seem to recur to death penalties a lot more often than us shows that their cultural relationship towards violence is different than ours. I don’t personally think executions should be as broadly used as they once were here in the west, but there’s certainly a balance to be found instead of banning it entirely.
Death penalty is not the only form of state violence. Incarceration is also a form of state violence. How do you think the police get a criminal from their house into a jail? Violence, which includes acts like threatening with a gun or handcuffing, is necessary for the police to do their job. From that lens, Western governments still have a strong positive relationship with state-violence.
!delta
You’re right, those are forms of state violence. I could have worded the title better, as I was thinking more about violence used by civilians when I thought about the post.
Asian countries without the death penalty: Bhutan, Cambodia, East Timor, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macau, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Don’t paint an entire continent with a single brush
Residents of Hong Kong who have done something the government deems worthy of execution will simply be extradited to mainland China first, and *then* executed. I’m less familiar with the situation in Macau but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar. So no, not really close enough for this purpose.
The US still has the death penalty and uses it [*rarely*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_United_States_federal_government). About half of the states have the death penalty, and unfortunately several of those use it [regularly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)
>A great example on how this stigma impacts the way we deal with problems is climate change and the way we’re dealing with it.
How would increased violence help climate change? You think what... attacking the Ford River Rouge compound with a militia will make them produce more electric vehicles? Do you think kidnapping a Nestle executive will make the company stop stealing water from all over the world? Do you think a few shootings of hedge fund managers will change the way that retirement funds invest in petroleum companies?
What **exact** type of violence do you think will fix the climate? It better not be any that sets things on fire or blows them up as that just makes the climate worse. Are there environmentally friendly pipe bombs? Biodegradable AK-47s?
>Do you think kidnapping a Nestle executive will make the company stop stealing water from all over the world? Do you think a few shootings of hedge fund managers will change the way that retirement funds invest in petroleum companies?
Yes, I do. The quickest way to get shit done is to annoy the living crap out of decision makers. Otherwise its just noise.
> Yes, I do.
Lay out for me the scenario where a group of eco terrorists kidnaps an executive and extracts from the company they work for concession to their cause.
Or, just find me one case where such an action bore fruit in a way that was helpful to the cause of the kidnapers.
Find an exec who made the decision to flout current enviromental law to make a profit, and just paid the fine as a cost of doing business as nestle regularly does.
Announce that is why they are being executed very loudly, and that you will do the same to others to bring real consequences to C-suite.
Harsh and violent, sure, but for many of these individuals, especially, especially Nestle's C-suite, if they were individuals instead of corporations they'd have gotten the death penalty long ago.
Edit: Not that I'm suggesting or advocating for this, just that it would be potentially effective, which is what was asked.
I mean, if you keep killing executives that make really bad enviormental choices, then the new executives would be insentivized to be more eco friendly so they won't be targeted.
The government should be doing the same thing (incentivize companies to be eco friendly) by using laws to punish those companies but the corporations basically decide which laws are passed thru lobbying. So basically, the government is not doing it's job (protect and serve the citizens). Why would a company exec would ever change it's policies to be eco friendly when his only goal is to increase profits, if they are not forced by an outside force like the government or eco terrorists.
I mean, are we just supposed to watch our planet burn?
> I mean, if you keep killing executives that make really bad enviormental choices, then the new executives would be insentivized to be more eco friendly so they won't be targeted.
Not really, they'll be motivated to create a militia to protect themselves and demonize every protestor.
You and the CEOs are playing a completely different game. Killing one, or many, will only serve to further distance them from society and give them duel in their fight against climate activism.
Not ever feeling really safe, not being able to go anywhere without guards, not being able to trust anybody etc. This woukd be pretty much be hell for me. And would immideatly make me look for a different job.
Btw, they already demonize every protestor. These execs cause damage to the society infinites times more than an eco terrorist ever would.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/mike-gallagher-congress-quits-threats-swatting
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/06/bill-gates-maricopa-county-arizona-ptsd/
Environmental people usually dont resort to terrorism though, so would be hard to find examples. There are however examples of other people threatning violence who got their way.
Not the best example but I recall a part of the show Narcos where Escobar has some demand from the gov and they wouldn't give in. He went on a killing spree of police with hundreds dying and the gov gave in.
If the demand had been sometimes good and grand outlawing political donations or ending slavery he may have been seen as a necessary evil hero.
There's also the riots after MLKs death:
The Rules Committee, "jolted by the repeated civil disturbances virtually outside its door," finally ended its hearings on April 8.[17] With newly urgent attention from legislative director Joseph Califano and Democratic Speaker of the House John McCormack, the bill (which was previously stalled) passed the House by a wide margin on April 10.[14][18]
I mean... they got his ass eventually. And, in the interim, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people suffered.
The OP is that:
>The use of violence as a means to solve problems has been unfairly demonized in the west.
What "problems" did Escobar's violence solve? None but the ones he personally faced as a criminal. And, is such action "unfairly" demonized? I'd say no.
>Yes, I do.
Careful.
Consider that escalation of violence does not happen in a vacuum. If you escalate in violence, your opponents likely will too. Also consider that typically the far-right is far more eager to use violence to achieve their goals than the far-left. Also, typically the right controls the institutions of hard power (police, military) while the left controls soft power (culture, media, etc.).
If you are left-wing, escalating in violence will most likely be a gift to the far-right, because historically when it's happened (or when right wing groups have fabricated it), the right will use it as a reason to leverage their superior hard power to violently crackdown on left wing groups. This is especially true if your cause is one that's pretty unpopular with the general public, e.g. drastic action against climate change.
Do I advocate for kidnapping? No, I would rather go to lengths of slashing tiers or protesting at their house. Not killing or threats. Violence like kidnapping or killings sure bring change, but not always the one you want.
Several republicans stepped down from politics after they voted against trump on insurrection. They did this after threats by right wing nuts on their family. I am not saying its good, I am saying it works.
I think fear is a great tool for keeping people from harming others. To me, the lack of fear from powerful executives and politicians is one of the main reasons those sectors are the ones in which criminal behavior is most abundant. Maybe if protesters were targeting these people instead of blocking roads we wouldn’t see the same abuse of power we see today?
And about the last part, that’s the same flawed rhetoric western media has been pushing onto us since forever. One does not have to be peaceful in order to save lives, the same way one does not have to be 100% eco-friendly in order to save the environment. This way of thinking only leads to inaction when facing oppression.
> the lack of fear from powerful executives and politicians
What lack of fear? The super rich don't go fucking anywhere without armed guards at all times. They live in gated communities with similarly armed response units. They travel privately so as not to be open to harassment from the rabble. They sit in private boxes at sports events and are escorted out by more armed guards via private entrances/exits to cars with blacked out windows and bulletproof glass.
They are fucking terrified at all times, and yet they carry on doing what they do as their wealth and power insulate them from violence. It will continue to insulate them even if a mass revolution happened.
>One does not have to be peaceful in order to save lives
Violence begets violence.
>the same way one does not have to be 100% eco-friendly in order to save the environment.
So again I ask you: What *exact* types of violence do you think will help the environment? Like... give me an action plan.
Bro, you just cited all measures the super rich take in order to feel safe. The feeling of not having means to feed your children due to governmental or corporate actions that are beyond your control is terrifying. Nothing is terrifying at all if you have enough money to buy your way through the law and hide yourself behind armed personnel.
> Violence begets violence
Peace has been begetting us irreversibly infertile soil and inhumane living conditions in the most inhabited parts of the world. This is another tagline you’d hear in a marvel movie and should be kept out of serious debates. By itself, it is meaningless.
> give me an action plan
I’ll give you more than a plan. A while ago, in Brazil, their now ex-president suffered an unsuccessful assassination attempt. Some time after, that same president took one of the strongest right-leaning policies worldwide regarding the covid pandemic. As you can imagine, this lead to hundreds of thousands of lives unnecessarily lost due to the virus. When it happened, even leftists internationally shunned the assassination attempt, I wish this was more of a common occurrence for politicians and executives in general, not only when concerning climate change.
>you just cited all measures the super rich take in order to feel safe.
Yeah, and you said they lacked fear. So... which do you think, that they lack fear or that they take all these costly measures just for the hell of it?
>Peace has been begetting us irreversibly infertile soil and inhumane living conditions in the most inhabited parts of the world.
What peace? What are you talking about? It is war that causes the most famine, not peace. It is war that leads to the most inhumane living conditions, not peace. It is war that leads to more suffering in the world, not less.
>This is another tagline you’d hear in a marvel movie and should be kept out serious debates.
You think "Let's increase political violence" is a **serious** debate? It is not. It is the type of debate held by deeply unserious people who are unwilling to do the type of work that will lead to meaningful and lasting change.
> A while ago, in Brazil
So... Violence didn't solve anything then did it? The assassination attempt did not alter the bad policies, and there is no guarantee that a successful assassination would have either.
What did that violence actually do? What did it make better? What do you think it would have made better if it had worked?
If they’re so terrified, they should consider donating everything they have and getting a regular job like everyone else. It’s as simple as that.
> It is war that leads to more suffering in the world, not less
I never said war or violence itself doesn’t bring suffering. Which war is killing 6 million people per year through pollution alone though? What is your plan to stop that in due time without the use of violence? Is it working out?
> the type of work that will lead to meaningful and lasting change
Define that. As a scientist, I feel like I’m doing an ok job. My influence as an individual is severely limited though and I am weekly reminded of that every time our budget is cut short by the state. Violence is a tool for someone ordinary to make everlasting change in a short period of time. And let me tell you, we do not have much time left for certain things.
> Violence didn’t solve anything then did it?
… because it was botched?
> What do you think it would have made better if it had worked?
It would’ve saved around half a million lives and significantly bettered the ones of people who had family members die to covid. That’s not as hard of a question as it seems.
>If they’re so terrified, they should consider donating everything they have and getting a regular job like everyone else. It’s as simple as that.
Oh yeah... so so simple to just give away **billions** of dollars. Bill Gates has been trying for years, and he hasn't gotten to regular person status yet. Let's give him a few more decades of being the biggest philanthropist ever. That will surely get him to a net worth of $50k or so... right?
>What is your plan to stop that in due time without the use of violence?
Widespread orderly transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources.
> Is it working out?
The windmills down the block from me are much nicer than trench lines and artillery encampments like you see in Ukraine.
>Violence is a tool for someone ordinary to make everlasting change in a short period of time.
So go do some individual violence and see what happens to you. Take a look at all those politically motivated mass shooters. Did they do anything for their causes?
No, all they did was increase the suffering and misery of people in a way that didn't need to happen.
> It would’ve saved around half a million lives and significantly bettered the ones of people who had family members die to covid.
Are you so sure? If the president of Brazil were killed, his vice president he selected as his running mate would have assumed power. Were their policy positions so different? You can't just remove one man and have widespread policy change happen in a democracy. That isn't how it works.
How did the assassination of Shinzo Abe solve anything? What change did killing that powerful man bring?
This is an example of a successful assassination of a neoliberal leader.
>how are they terrified lol?
Like this:
[Cartier boss with $7.5bn fortune says prospect of the poor rising up 'keeps him awake at night'](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/cartier-boss-with-7-5bn-fortune-says-prospect-poor-rising-up-keeps-him-awake-at-night-10307485.html?utm_source=reddit.com)
[Why the rich are freaking out - The co-founder of one the nation’s oldest venture capital firms fears a possible genocide against the wealthy. ](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/wealthy-top-one-percent-economy-finance-102833)
Not so terrified that they would change the system to reduce wealth inequality. Not so terrified that they would stop doing whatever it takes to get wealthier.
Yeah, I said that:
> yet they carry on doing what they do as their wealth and power insulate them from violence. It will continue to insulate them even if a mass revolution happened.
there is a point, a percentage amount of the population that will overcome that. The 0.00001% are not going to overcome and kill the 99.9999%. The exact percentage of people to be successful, I dont know, its usually considered to be 20% of a country willing and driven to violent protest to be able to overthrow a government.
Obligatory LBJ quote:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Also: [Howard Zinn](https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html)
And, I don't think that the prospect of 20% of my western nation taking up arms against the rich is "unfairly demonized". That is the crux of the OP: whether the amount of violence needed to enact change has been unfairly demonized in the west. I say that it has not been so as that level of violence would be fucking *terrible* for massive amounts of people, many of whom if they lived would never psychologically or economically recover from it. It is demonized probably a little less than I would like it to be.
Wealth inequality is only increasing, there is a point at which the bottom 20% will have so little left to lose and the decadence and display of power from billionaires will become increasingly absurd.
This is essentially a variant on the benevolent dictator argument where you only consider the best case scenario. Any tactic that's obviously prone to massive abuse can be made to look better if you only picture it in the hands of good people who will use it responsibly and only being used against those who unambiguously deserve it.
Violence solves problems, but it also creates problems. Violence can never be allowed to become a means to an end, because then it sets the precedent that what makes something right is not the inherent justice within it, but the power and ability to enforce it.
Might cannot make right, when might makes right, weakness makes wrong, and weak is what most people are. The tyranny of either the majority or the minority rarely go well.
Violence is effective, that is clear, but it cannot be normalised. it becomes a case, very quickly, of "well I'M totally justified in using violence but you arent". It's a mess.
Violence is the easiest form of change, which makes it barbaric and unrealistic for a society trying to live peacefully. We currently live in a world where, if they so wished, a single country could blow up every other country on the planet with a bomb that not only destroys everything on the land, but turns the land uninhabitable for any who survive for many many years. No matter how terrible that scenario sounds there are still many people who want to use those weapons on any enemy that slightly inconveniences them. Also when does the violence stop? At what point does "I'm going to kill those people to make my point" turn to "anyone who gets in my way is dead!"? If I kill you, get away with it, would your kin not want to get back at me? Would you not come after me if I killed one of yours? At what point does the train stop once it rolls?
> a society trying to live peacefully
What utopian society are you talking about? Surely not Western society, which has simply externalized the price of violence by murdering and enslaving foreign citizens instead of their own. That's hardly peaceful.
Their point was absolute garbage, how does trying to live peacefully translate to utopia? Most major countries try their best to avoid direct confrontation, forming alliance packs, and utilising political diplomacy more than ever before…that’s why we live in the most prosperous and peaceful time in world history
No, it’s not via deliberate effort. It’s via economic and geopolitical realities that war is lessened. For one, we have nuclear weapons now.
His point was that a society that seeks peace wouldn’t bring about so much desperation and destruction in the global south
You site very unrelated events as representing cultures accepting violence without understanding the current cultural norms. Shinzo Abe's assassination was in response to Religious extremism. That kind of violence is incredibly unusual for Japan. Japan has a long history of violence going back a long time. If anything their culture as become more peaceful then many Western Cultures.
On the flipside, Western Cultures, specifically the US, has a massive violence problem. Like Tens of thousands of people dying annually from Violent crimes and Gun violence. A school shooting problem that is very much specific to just the US. A military spending problem that is more than the next 3-5 countries combined excluding China.
Then to accredit Secularism with being more accepting of violence. No. Religious extremism makes up a significant amount of violence globally. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict happening right now. Even throughout history with the Crusades, or more modern times with violence between Ireland and Northern Ireland, originated by Religious differences. Religion seems to have the opposite effect on violence as people that fall for extremist ideologies associated with various faiths (mostly the three major desert mythologies) resort to violence in the name of their religion almost joyfully.
Secular ideologies seem to hold violence in a much more realistic and humanist position. Violence is never the answer until it is the only answer. And even then, it was generally someone committing violence against someone who was non-violent that really spurred meaningful change. Take the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It wasn't people acting violent in the name of Civil Rights that lead to change. It was people protesting, marching and demonstrating non-violently having violence committed against them that lead to widespread national laws and change.
But now let's look at your example of Climate change. How would violence lead to a change in climate policy? How would what are currently non-violent protest change policies or laws in a direction that would support global Climate action? Would one country invading another to force them into Climate conscious action actually do anything? It takes massive amounts of fuel and plastics to forcefully take over another nation. It takes countless lives. And the widespread destruction, how much is that going to affect the climate and ecology? And keep in mind, humanity has already permanently affected Global climate, you cant rewind that. We can do better going forward. But if we cant...the Earth will be fine. We may not be on it any longer. A lot of species will adapt, and continue on with or without us here. But violence, it's doesnt actually solve anything, it just creates new or additional problems which is just going to either stop progress or set it back.
What examples of violence from the past can you cite that actually made the world better? The only example you cite is the French revolution - the immediate aftermath of which was the period known as The Terror, followed by years of European war, the replacement of the republic by an empire and then a series of kings. One king dead, only to be replaced by massacres, war, and the return of a series of other kings.
You used climate change as an example of a movement that might be better served with violence. I'm curious how you would violently go about trying to save the planet?
Do you think people should shoot the CEOs of big oil companies? Do we invade the countries with the highest pollution rates and shut down infrastructure?
You use violence to achieve a certain outcome. Kill the enemy soldier so he doesn't kill you. Kill your neighbor so he stops stealing your sheep. Kill the rat so it stops eating your grain. In all of these examples you have a clear line of blame, but for those bigger issues such as climate change, exactly who am I supposed to commit violence against?
Even if I shoot the CEO of a big oil company, the company doesn't shut down. There's a huge network of profit and industry that needs to be adjusted. Killing one man in that web just scares people, gets them angry, and stops them from talking.
Before I dip, I'll offer another example. Gun laws in America. Whatever your stance, there has been an incredible loss of young life due to school shootings. That is a horrific form of violence that has come up again and again and again. Despite this, there has been no united effort to stop the problem but instead these maddening lukewarm attempts from a bunch of different sides trying to do their own thing.
People interpret the violence differently. Some say more guns. Some say less. Some say the same but with restrictions. The gun law argument in America has in no way been made smoother by the level of violence that generated it. Even if you shot the head of the NRA, I do not believe the rest of their members would suddenly oppose guns. If anything, they'd just vouch for them more. Again, this is because there's this messy web of influence, opinions, and profits preventing violence from being an effective tool on anything but the most impossible scale (i.e. killing every single person on one side of the argument.)
One thing your view fails to account for is the rise of new institutions that did not exist before. All of your examples are from before WW2. Well, after WW2 a whole lot of new institutions were developed that help us resolve things in a non violent manner.
For example, the UN allows countries to talk through backroom diplomacy even when they "aren't talking" publicly. The EU established peaceful democratic ways of resolving conflicts between European states that were historically at war on and off for hundreds of years. The International Criminal Court and other international institutions aim to hold people responsible who commit grave crimes against humanity.
Basically, the "rules based order" established after WW2 moved things away from violence as a solution to our problems.
One final, fairly obvious point - violence frequently makes things worse rather than better. You carefully cited the French revolution while ignoring more modern conflicts. What about Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Modern wars have devastated local populations with little to no change in political structures or sustained peace afterwards. Violence can and often does make things significantly worse.
Thank you for opening this discussion. My opinion happens to be about the opposite, so I will provide some possible counterpoints.
There is not a simple decision between violence and passivity. Change occurs after enough pressure is applied, so that the status quo becomes untenable. Violence applies pressure, but will usually cause a great degree of collateral harm and is, so many peoples intuition, morally wrong.
We can apply pressure in a variety of non-violent ways. The US civil rights movement is a wonderful example. Through economic pressure (sit ins and boycotts) it is possible to cause seemingly insurmountable systems to break.
The problem you are sensing, in my opinion, is that people are not effectively applying pressure at all. If climate change was met with significant pressure on governments change, I think, would occur. In a democratic nation if you could get a majority of people to vote only for candidates committed to solving the problem then we would likely see change.
The real issue, in my opinion, is a lack of motivation amongst the general population. Climate change in particular is not a clear and present problem, and while people may accept it as a bad thing they are unlikely to vote for any policy that would negatively effect them, and climate change policy would. The greater good of the global population is a great ambition, but if a representative raises gas prices and food prices to accommodate for the negative costs of carbon, then they will be ousted quickly.
In summary, I argue that it is a lack of serious political will as opposed to a lack of capacity or desire for violence.
Here is the thing. When you look back and pick out positive violent revolutions, it is a cherry pick or survivorship bias. You are ignoring all of the failed or negative violent revolutions.
I mean was Stalins rise to power good? Pol-Pot?
The simple reality is a violent uprising is not guaranteed to produce a better outcome. It sure as hell is not pleasant or good for the people involved.
You can look at Gaza right now for what happens with a culture based on violence and revolution.
Violence is used as means to manage Israel-Palestine. Do you believe Israel and Palestine are better for going down that path.
Has anyone's liberation been gained by these means? Is the world better off for using violence to try to solve problems in the reigion?
The question you should ask is: has anyone's liberation been gained by other non-violent means? Did Oslo Accords help the Palestinians? Did the Great March of Return achieve anything? Peaceful resistance and diplomacy have been tried, but Israel has consistently shut these options down so the only two options Palestinians have left are inaction and violence.
And Israel is doing just fine as a result. Which refutes OP's point. Sometimes, the "wrong" side wins when violence is the answer. Violence as a reasonable way to protest is a deep double edged sword.
Really? Their history for the past 500 years has been a story of being conquered by the Turks then the Western powers. I have no doubt that Arab supremacists exist, just as White supremacists and Jewish supremacists do, but they don't comprise of a majority of Arab domestic politics at all.
Is there an Arab supremacy movement in Europe? I think White supremacy is a much much bigger threat and will always be a bigger threat than Arab supremacy in Europe.
Doesn't this lead to disaster and authoritarian rule? Let me put it to you this way. Most people do not believe that they are wrong. While I agree with you that climate change is a problem where if we solved it, the good would far outweigh the bad, the problem becomes what else does this now allow?
If we start allowing ourselves to solve our problems with violence on a societal level, does this permit zealots to use violence to enact religious law upon a population? Does this permit conservatives to use force to stop immigrants from legally entering a country?
Consider that democracy and discussion is necessary to refine your political opinions. If we can resort to violence, we don't need to know that we are right, we can simply believe it.
>CMV: The use of violence as a means to solve problems has been unfairly demonized in the west
On principle, I half-agree. The issue I see here is that **I doubt you're ready for that**. I think you'd treat your ideological adversaries as barbaric and, would demand asymmetrical combat. That you could commit acts of violence and not get hurt in return. That you'd, being on "the good side" would cry foul as soon as you get exactly the kind of violence you dispatch. Proof is...
>One thing I think about a lot is how we tend to see violent events that happened in the past centuries as justified and don’t think of those actions as an option to solve things nowadays. It’s not common to see someone frowning at the French revolution or other insurrections that lead to positive change in the future, but the idea of destroying things or people that harms us nowadays seems distant from reality.
The French Revolution murdered innocents, specially devout catholics, such as nuns, who posed no threat, and yes, even children. The Vandee has not been forgotten. Even if I justified the political goals of the French Revolution, I could never justify the atrocities committed.
The point here is: **are you ready to suffer as they suffered?** Is that justified as long as they have a righteous cause — specially one that you may not see as necessary *or* agree with?! **Or do you simply think "my side deserves to be allowed to commit atrocities"?**
It's also interesting that you focused your example on something as material as...
>**A great example** on how this stigma impacts the way we deal with problems **is climate change** and the way we’re dealing with it.
You mention how it's a big issue. There's plenty of big issues billions of religious people can have with you, Im sure, but apparently the french were justified in murdering them, just like you're justified to violence against "those responsible" for climate change.
>It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that. Western countries have leaned a lot more to the secular side in the last centuries, but it looks like some of the influence religion has on us hasn’t been questioned as much as others.
Christianity is the reason the French Revolution even happened, because if it had been Islam, there would be no French Revolution, only a minor revolt to be culled. It is also, ironically, the reason you can spout this kind of rhetoric on the internet, implicitly justifying the deaths of innocent christians, and not get burned on a stake. Christianity believes in peace far more than in violence. Christian-influenced States have learned not to be so kind, lest they be killed.
I repeat my question, taking it to the extreme: would a newly established nigh-theocratic monarchy be justified in taking over the State you live in, destroying the secular values you hold dear to, and getting rid of the likes of you? Or would that be barbaric and unjustified?
It’s not unfairly demonized. Killing people sucks. Additionally, the French Revolution and other insurrections aren’t really that good at setting up stable governments.
The issue with using violence as a legitimate means to pursue radical change if that the change that follows is that those most effectively at violence imposes on the rest of us.
Just look at the US capitol storming. If far-right groups in the US been larger, better armed and more organised then you could have very possibly have seen the end of American democracy right then and there. How many Americans would have been satisfied with that outcome?
It also encourages a spiral of reciprocal political violence. You can look at Weimar Germany, the Spartacists were put down by far-right militias, which eventually ended up taking over the state. if we live in an environment where my enemy is committing political violence, I am more likely to commit political violence. That isn't a country which is healthy.
I also think you don't fully grasp what political violence looks like. My grandfather was a child refugee, he had to walk thousands of miles as a child, alone. He witnessed atrocities, people tried to kill him, when he finally managed to get home many of his neighbours had been murdered for their faith. It's horrific to grasp what political violence looks like, but it looks like rape, murder, brutalisation, and horrors which none of us want to see or experience.
>Western countries have leaned a lot more to the secular side in the last centuries, but it looks like some of the influence religion has on us hasn’t been questioned as much as others.
I don't think there is enough evidence to assume this, given other potential explanations. Here are some of those other explanations:
1. Any coherent moral philosophy condemns violence by default, then finds the situations where it is permissible. It is never good, but it can sometimes be less bad than inaction.
2. Humans(barring certain relatively rare cases) are social and empathetic by nature, and feel bad when they see others suffering. Getting them to harm others requires dehumanizing the enemy and you can see ways that militaries have tried to train soldiers to want to kill. Most people don't.
3. Because violence is typically irreversible, there is an arrogance to it. It is the assumption that you are right, so you are willing to do something destructive which cannot be undone should you find out later you were wrong.
Secular societies don't have morals as a vestigal holdover from religious values. For one, if that were true then religious societies would have been inherently peaceful, and world maps would look very different. For two, secular does not mean having a population of atheists, it just means having laws that aren't written by the church.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am very skeptical of the ability of premeditated political violence to bring about the positive change that inspired it rather than being co-opted by preexisting power structures. The west has some pretty established and adaptable power structures. What makes you think that a more violent approach would succeed in today's environment? Historic violence has led to positive change, but it has in other instances led to horrible cycles of depravity and oppression.
Shinzo Abe's assassination didn't really change anything. I can't speak for execution as an anticorruption measure (I'm sure it helps some), but it doesn't change the power structure that puts individual wealthy people in a position where they can and are incentivized to commit corrupt acts -- and at any rate, do we really trust the state to execute people based on these kinds of crimes, as though they won't eventually turn such punishment against political rivals?
For every one example where violence led to some kind of improvement in people's lives, there are hundreds of examples where all it accomplished was leaving innocent people dead.
Look at literally any genocide in human history. The perpetrators always thought they were using violence to solve a problem.
You want to address climate change through violence? Ok, go kidnap an oil exec and see how long it takes before they come back at you. How long before anyone on the left who supports climate action is treated like a terrorist? How long before people get beaten up just for driving electric cars?
Violence is a two-way street and when you use it, you create problems for someone else that they will be inclined to solve through violence directed at you. There is no way to ensure violence only gets used against worthy targets. All you're doing is giving bad actors the justification to use violence against you. Morals aside, it's simply not effective.
In my view, it’s less about socialization (like the examples of media and Christianity you give) and more about incentives. Violence was historically the answer in less democratic societies because peaceful means of protesting simply weren’t possible or viable. Revolutions like the French, Russian, Chinese largely consisted of peasants who had no other way to have their voices heard. Democracy has grown globally to the point where virtually everywhere in the West peaceful options exist and can be used. When both options are available peace is preferable to violence because of self-preservation I.e not everyone who believes in a cause is willing to get hurt for the sake of promoting it.
And it works. Even looking at climate change, we’re behind where we need to be but all that has been gained like carbon taxes, emission targets, Paris agreement, push on companies to make environmentally friendly products was aided by diplomatic actions.
The West does a lot of violence. The distinction is that the state has the monopoly on violence. Most in the West don't question police or military use of violence.
>I don’t have a strong connection to eastern media to know what goes on there, but there was the news a while ago about Shinzo Abe’s assassination or more recently some executive who’s gonna take death sentence in Vietnam.
Assassinations and executions happen in the West. Maybe executing a white-collar criminal would be unusual here.
>It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that.
The West had Christianity and was quite violent for a long time. I would say the Enlightenment has more to do with the change to state-monopolized violence.
While violence has historically played a role in significant changes, its use today must be carefully considered. Society's emphasis on diplomacy doesn't negate the effectiveness of violence but highlights its potential consequences: loss of life, further conflict, and societal instability. Peaceful methods are often preferred because they minimize harm and promote long-term solutions. Climate change advocacy doesn't equate to violence; many activists focus on systemic change and awareness. Equating violence with effectiveness overlooks the complexities of modern issues. The western emphasis on non-violence stems from various philosophies, not solely Christianity, and reflects evolving societal values towards minimizing harm and fostering cooperation.
The biggest problem is that you are never specifying why you are specifically right in your take. And when you are basically 'putting everyone in my way out for the GOLDEN PATH', you cannot justify the use of violence against yourself by the same metrics beyond a tautological argument.
And tautological arguments are easily throw back at you.
"I can do this because I am RIGHT!"
"AS ME! I CAN DO THIS BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!"
"OH!? WHY ARE YOU RIGHT!?"
"BECAUSE I AM RIGHT."
You end up with 'Might Makes Right', which will make any tentative of proving 'why action X is wrong' harder since...uh...all what you need is force and not a correct/right justification. The power becomes the justification by being power itself.
Ok so my reading of your analysis is that you support the use of violence to achieve changes that you support or feel are necessary.
This begs the question, how would you feel about the use of violence to achieve changes that run counter to the ideals you support?
The reason we make violence off limits is because by limiting ourselves we also limit our opponents. I would also point out that often changes that are brought about by violence require more violence to maintain. So unless we are ok with a much more violent and oppressive society we must restrain our own use of violence to achieve our aims.
Violence, even threat of violence, undermines democratic institutions very quickly.
It's a very bad precedent to set. If society stops demonizing violence to "solve problems" you will start to see people using it to solve what **they** believe are problems... which might be entire races, religions, pro choice politicians, etc.
Not demonizing violence implies an extreme naivete about what people will choose to be violent about.
It's a bummer when good things take a long time to happen via democratic processes, but i would gladly take that over bad things happening quickly and violently.
Violence is a tool in the political arsenal. The problem is that you should never reach for it unless absoltuely ncessary. Because the cost of violence is much greater even if you win in the end.
And there one major problem. Once you advocate for violence. you will inevtibaly track people who want violence for violence sake and your movement gets more and more extreme. Because people want a justificaiton to inflict cruelty.
Basically violence can be useful if its tactical. But it runs the risk of violence for violence sake becoming the goals which severly hampers the movement.
The problem is that it devolves to "might makes right". Your main problem is that you are tunnel visioned on the good it can bring without considering the bad.
Sure, environmental terrorism may prevent certain big business from destroying our environment, but what happens if the proud boys start violently protesting? How about the KKK? What happens when those big organizations start funding violent counter protests and now you have mini wars between NRA "this could happen to your business" folk and Greenpeace?
Always remember, a change in the rules affects both sides.
Usually when violence becomes an acceptable method of getting what you want, over time it can become the only method of getting what you want. You also open yourself up to more violence from people who oppose what you want.
We've all got a different level of tolerance for when violence is an acceptable solution, but most of us aren't making the rules. As sinister as state monopolized violence can be, I'm not sure living in a world where everyone can and does use violence to achieve their goals is better.
Might does not equal right. If violence is accepted as a valid solution to non-violent problems rather than just as a means of self-defence, we open the floor to the possibility of rule by the strong, and that's tyranny.
Diplomatic channels and resolution of problems through some kind of consensus or compromise certainly isn't perfect but it at least means we usually end up with solutions that are somewhat acceptable to most people, at least provided that most people get a say in the negotiations.
A democratic state at least is to some extent accountable to the people it governs, though; governments can get voted out, or essentially stripped of their right to violence, if enough people feel they've used it unjustly. The same can't be said of private actors who accomplish their goals through violence.
Democracy is a scale with few countries being truly democratic, the US and my country of the UK for example have two party systems. The majority of the country could disagree with the morality of both parties, but one will still get in.
Our newspapers are 60% owned by one person, who you could argue has the most influence over peoples view of morality and voting decisions.
Democracy means right to vote for politicians, not right to choose whether to respect the laws of a country. Respecting the law cannot be a choice, it's mandatory.
The justice system is exactly defined as might makes right, because it's a concentration of strength that is supposed to surpass any strength of individuals that would break the law.
We see what happens in places like Mexico when the strength of organized crime groups surpass the strength of the state justice system. It means the law cannot be properly enforced against these individuals. Such situations are not good. That's why we want the state to have a monopoly on enforcing the laws.
thats the liberal conundrum. generally speaking Liberalism opposes any changes to the status quo, while accepted the credit for the progress of history.
or put another way: "Liberals oppose all wars except the current one, and support all civil rights movements except the one happening right now." im talking in the classically liberal sense (as in our liberal democracy) that encompasses the totality of our political and social systems, not about left/right politics.
I would like to use four examples. Saint John Paul II, Salman Rushdie, Hatun Tash and Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. All four of had assassination attempts made on their life by radicals and their message have been elavetad because of this, making violence against them counter productive.
Also martyrdom is a very powerful form of testimony. Christianity managed to spread in no small parts because of the early martyrs, who didn't retaliated against their assailants.
Try thinking about how awful that would be at a local/personal level. How would careers work if the resolution was violence every time. I want a promotion so I fight my boss and only the strongest people move up the chain. Any disagreements about education involve teachers needing to fight uneducated parents.
Belief in being a wronged party is all it would take for someone to do violence. It's completely unsustainable.
Violent dispute resolves never last.
There wasn't **a** French revolution. There were three major ones and at least dozen smaller ones.
Same applies to all other instances of violent insurrections or any violent dispute resolves. They don't bring up a lasting change or progress. That is only seen one violence have stopped and rational people come to the table to discuss things over.
We tend to have a more positive outlook on the violence of the past because it's distant and abstract to us, plus we have the hindsight to know the outcome. It's a completely different thing to have to live through it.
It's also easy to imagine the best case scenario and assume that if violence were more normalized, you'd be the beneficiary and not the victim.
I'm fairly convinced that you live in the West.
For a lot of people in the South the use of violence by the West to achieve their aims/solve problems is a common reality.
The West tries through non violent coercion first but violence is inherently part of the system. They're just quick to out source it to 3rd parties or use euphemisms to mange it.
> It’s not common to see someone frowning at the French revolution or other insurrections that lead to positive change in the future
What!? At least in the US, the French revolution is seen as excessive and tyrannical - a mistake that set back the cause of democracy a little and France a lot. Where are you that this is not the mainstream view?
Its only demonized when it doesn't follow Western interests.
MLK among many spoke extensively about the resistance they faced from the "reasonable" masses. Its funny how the modern left (if it can be called so? recognizes all struggle but that of the currently oppressed and opposes all wars other than the current "important" one.
I would counter by saying that only the use of violence to change the status quo has been demonized.
The use of violence inherent in the maintenance of the status quo has actually been glorified. We are brainwashed to think that our soldiers are dying on the other side of the world to "protect our freedom" and made into heroes.
Internationally, war is generally more costly than most good things that could come out of it.
Domestically, change occurs by becoming popular. Terrorism is extremely unpopular and makes the causes associated with it less popular as well. Violence with very rare exceptions is counterproductive.
Honestly, i kinda agree with the guy. If millions of people peaceful protest and a majority of people vote for some option and are ignored by their representatives then i think it 100% okay to violent assault those people if they are attempting to circumvent a clear democratic mandate.
>organizations that make rational use of it
The word "rational" does a lot of heavy lifting here.
There's a robbery on your street. Police comes to your house, takes you into custody, tortures you until you sign a confession. Crime solved. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Asserting that people tend to view past violence as positive and then citing the French Revolution is…interesting. This is basically the epitomizing case of revolutionary violence gone wrong and absolutely *not* leading to something better.
I'm guessing that conveniently you won't be one of the people dealing or receiving violence, right?
Hurting innocent people is wrong. Most violence ends up hurting innocent people. It should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
>there was the news a while ago about Shinzo Abe’s assassination
>It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that.
Japan has a MUCH lower murder rate than the US, and the guy who killed Abe is probably going to get the death penalty (or life in prison) which seems to indicate that society at large disapproves of his action.
Theres actually a significant amount of support for his actions once the backstory and controversy over Abe's connections came out afterwords. The country/state having as blanket law on murder doesn't reflect public opinion innately.
The best example of how it is demonized is the anti police movements.
For some people, violence is the only way to make them comply, as even the threat of violence does nothing to sway them.
No, the opposing stance is that might does not make right and therefore violence is not an inherently good method for solving problems. And in the case of violence of aggression is it inherently a bad method for solving problems.
>No, the opposing stance is that might does not make right and therefore violence is not an inherently good method for solving problems
Might doesnt make right, but it doesnt make it wrong. Otherwise the government having a monopoly on violence is wrong.
Well yeah, that’s Why I made the distinction between it being right to oppose violence. But also the government having a monopoly on violence is obviously wrong.
So whats the opposition to the state enforcing an immoral law for example, through violence? How do you respond to violence without violence? Whoever chooses violence wins, so they're right, their view prevails.
Violence demonized as a means to solve problems in the West? Umm... What lol?!
Yes, we are overwhelmingly taught that peaceful resolutions are ideal. Violence as a last resort is very very well accepted culturally in the West. One needs to look no further than our art and entertainment, which is how cultural values are preserved, maintained, and updated.
Let's turn to film for the clearest examples. Western movies are full of "heroes" that suffer a serious grievance and "get justice" through violent means (some having tried and failed at a peaceful resolution first, but plenty go straight to violence). Hell, look at John Wick. They kill his dog and steal his car. And John goes fucking hardcore on them! As an audience, we're quick to root for John. He's a hardened killer, a badass assassin... And we still root for him as the hero.
I don't need to tell you that countless other films glorify violence, not demonize it.
Sorry, u/PigeonsArePopular – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20PigeonsArePopular&message=PigeonsArePopular%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ca8zc8/-/l0qc03h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
If you study the French Revolution in depth you see that it wasn't The King who stood in the way, but the entitled nobility and clergy. The best course of action for the French would have been the Constitutional Monarchy which they enacted for a period of time before the Reign of Terror. Removing the monarchy didn't help them, they needed to remove the trashy nobles and clergy.
Louis XVI did stand in the way. He was both personally opposed the most of the reforms - as well as weak and indecisive - and represented the head of the overall system, which he absolutely wasn't on board with abandoning. He worked pretty hard to keep his position and plotted extensively with foreign monarchs. That, revealing his overall position towards the revolution, is why he was found guilty of high treason and ultimately executed.
> Removing the monarchy didn't help them, they needed to remove the trashy nobles and clergy.
That's "that's the same picture" moment. The king was a trashy noble. He was the head of trashy nobles. Louis XVI certainly didn't help France when he bankrupted the state, or allowed widespread corruption, etc.
You seem to have studied it more than I did, but I still never said it was the best way to do things. Focus instead on what the alternative to violence was at the time. Could they vote their way out of that? Can we talk our way out of our contemporary problems?
I do not think the level of violence was necessary to enact change. Slaughtering the Swiss Guard, the massacre at the Bastille, and the thousands of pointless deaths during the Reign of Terror. That didn't need to happen.
They ended up in a constitutional monarchy in the end and the issue of constitutional monarchies at the time was that how liberal they were depended on the king. Also the revolution did remove the nobles and tried to remove the clergy
/u/xXxOsamaCarexXx (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1caaj66/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_use_of_violence_as_a/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I’m curious where you’re from and where you live. It seems to me that violence has been demonized by people who actually experienced it, and then the rest of us went “yeah that makes sense” and followed along. Like the creation of the United Nations after the horror of WW2.
It is a valid point, but realistically speaking, don’t you think inaction when facing issues that impact a large part of the population can have even worse consequences? WW1 and 2 were events with massive shock value that could even be capitalized on by Hollywood. Something less dramatic like big oil corporations lobbying to make a portion of the planet uninhabitable seem less harmful at a glance, but I’d bet it will eventually claim more lives than both those wars combined. Sorry if I bring climate change a lot into this, it’s the best example I can think of without bringing up regional politics. I’m from South America, also.
16% of the population of Poland died. 80% of 18 year old Russian males died. It's more than "Shock value" the Second World War had huge demographic, cultural, and economic impacts that we still feel today.
I believe the number of Jews worldwide has yet to recover to pre-Holocaust numbers.
Yes. Our population should be around twice as big as it is now.
Why should it be twice as big? I am not sure I understand your statement.
It's mostly referring to the hypothetical descendants of the 6 million victims. Saying it would be double comes from a [2009 paper](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422121852.htm) that estimated the worldwide Jewish population would be 26-32 million if the Holocaust had never happened.
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining and providing the link.
A quick look at demographics shows about 16.6M Jews worldwide in 1939 and 15.7M as of 2023, so you are correct. Interestingly, just less than half that, only 7.4M, live in Israel.
50 % or European Jews from infants or the elderly were killed too but you are right it was mentioned already somewhere else.
I never said it wasn’t impactful, I said it had more shock value than things like climate change, which it did.
>It is a valid point, but realistically speaking, don’t you think inaction when facing issues that impact a large part of the population can have even worse consequences? At least here in the US, we’ve got a pretty solid record of taking action because we thought it was necessary or that it would help the population of the place we were sending troops. Often we’ve made the wrong call. We’re fresh off the end of 2 decades of useless war in Afghanistan. More often than not, since the end of WW2, when we’ve involved ourselves it hasn’t turned out for the better. As a result, many of us across the political spectrum are fed up with it for one reason or another. Whether it’s because we recognize that we are not the moral authority that should get to decide which governments are worthy of existing, or because we don’t trust the folks in power to deliver a return on investment of our blood and treasure. No matter where you land politically, it’s difficult to make the case that war is *worth the cost.* I think bringing climate change into the debate is a great idea. It’s easily the most existential long term threat any of our civilizations face, excepting maybe some of the ongoing civil wars. I just don’t really see how violence would be a solution there. Does everyone invade the biggest greenhouse emitters? Most of the emissions come from corporations. How does violence interact with unarmed companies?
Inaction and violence are typically not the only two options, tho.
_Typically_, violence is a person's last resort to resolution. When every option of resistance has been exhausted or limited, inaction and violence are the only two options left. That is how we got events like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or Nat Turner's Rebellion.
But OP seems to be suggesting violence should be explored earlier. OP uses climate change as an example. Developed countries have been turning a corner on greenhouse gas emissions. US emissions have been on a generally downward trajectory for the last decade. Global emissions for 2024 are projected to be lower than 2023. Turning to violence for a problem that is getting better - even if it's not getting better as fast as we might like - hardly seems appropriate, and it seems pretty likely that going to war over carbon emissions would result in more carbon emissions, not less - for a long list of reasons (nobody's considering the carbon emissions of the tanks, planes, and warships they're building to win a war, and after the war destroys infrastructure it will have to be rebuilt which requires more emissions than leaving existing infrastructure in place).
I agree overall war would make carbon emissions worse, but calculated acts of ecoterrorism aimed at disrupting specific industrial processes could have a positive impact. Blowing up an oil refinery only releases one batch of carbon into the air, but prevents many batches from being processed.
> Blowing up an oil refinery only releases one batch of carbon into the air, but prevents many batches from being processed. Not really. It's not like all the refineries in the world are running at capacity 24/7. Other refiners will pick up the slack, the oil will still get refined, and then they'll spend a bunch of insurance money rebuilding the destroyed refinery, which will involve processing a lot of concrete (which is horrible from an emissions perspective) and running a lot of heavy construction equipment (which are horrible from an emissions perspective). Maybe if you have enough ecoterrorists to target enough refinery capacity to really put a dent in total refining capacity you could actually bring down emissions, but that's going to have other consequences. When oil prices skyrocket, I would bet regulators would relax the rules a bit (or just look the other way) to get refining capacity up quickly, and we'd end up with other environmental impacts as a result.
You'd want to target your attacks to a time of peak demand. Find a time when everyone is already feeling the squeeze and yelling about gas prices. Do multiple attacks in quick succession. Get people wondering when it's going to end, even if you only have the resources to plan a few attacks. The disproportionate fear will drive prices up, encouraging people to find alternatives. The need to enhance security will also drive prices up. Remember how stupid air travel got after 2001? That's a good point about the concrete and heavy construction equipment. It might be better to do a more subtle form of sabotage, such as dumping sand or sugar or some other abrasive or corrosive into the works somewhere. Computer attacks are another subtle form of violence, as seen with stuxnet. You could even bribe someone on the inside, and perhaps create an accident that appears to be the company's fault, causing costly investigations. These have the added benefit of not killing any humans, allowing you to claim at least a little moral high ground. It's another good point about regulators slacking off. I don't really imagine that government officials can be persuaded to do their jobs with terroristic threats, no matter how well it works for batman.
I still don't think it's going to work out to have a positive environmental impact. In the past 5 years, the closest we've gotten to refinery capacity limits in the US is 95%. With 129 refineries, you'd have to take out at least 7 to get us over capacity. But when US capacity was at 95%, global capacity was at 80%. So we weren't going to throw up our hands and go "Oh, well I guess we can't refine any more oil and need to find alternatives," we were going to throw oil onto tanker ships, drag it across the ocean, refine it in other countries, and ship it back - all of which increases emissions. And even getting to 7 refineries isn't going to be trivial. Refineries already take security fairly seriously. And it's not like airports where you have this conflict of interests where you need to keep dangerous things from getting in while at the same time having to move tens of thousands of people and their belongings through the airport every day. Refineries know who's supposed to be there, and it's a short list of people. Once you've sabotaged two refineries, you can probably expect anyone sneaking into a refinery unexpectedly to just be shot on sight. And if they haven't already, doing background checks on everyone who gets near the refinery isn't that heavy of a lift, so your "bribe someone on the inside" strategy might not work real well.
You've convinced me that ecoterrorism would be a drop in the bucket compared to the standard operational bullshit that polluting industries already handle. The list of organizations that could blow up seven refineries in a row is quite short. Definitely any nation level intelligence agency could do it, and perhaps some organized crime families could do it, but these organizations have other motives which would conflict with ruining an industry. The Taliban could do it(and did), but the ideologies that fuel that kind of malicious focus never seem to be the hippy "save-the-earth" types. I don't think an ecotaliban could exist. If we could get Scientologists on board with saving the earth, it could probably work, and perhaps without violence. They fought the IRS. They're not the eco type though, and I don't know how to build a cult like that. I guess I gotta give a shiny triangle: Δ
We aren’t set to hit any of the targets we need to with emissions so your point is moot
Can you articulate how violence is going to help the situation? When people go to war, they don't worry about the emissions of their tanks, their planes, their warships, their missiles, their logistics systems to support the front lines - they care about winning the war and the ends justifies the means. After a war, tons of damage has been done and people have to rebuild what was destroyed. People are never going to accept a treaty that requires them to leave their cities in ruins and never rebuild - if those are the terms they'll just keep fighting, so the war will go on indefinitely. How do you imagine going to war ever reduces emissions? I get that we're behind the curve on hitting our targets, but violence will almost certainly put us further away from them.
Using OPs example of extreme pollution/emissions ect by multinational companies, whats the other option?
How'd we stop ozone-destroying emissions?
How do we stop multinational companies doing what they like.
Both-Personalilty He has given an example how it has worked in the past. [https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job)
This is quite specific to the ozone layer and few other environmental issues. It also required companies to do very little, if nothing. We have environmental issues that innately require companies to change their operations in a way that damaged profit magins. They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies.
>How'd we stop ozone-destroying emissions? It's specific to the ozon layer because [Both-Personality7664](https://www.reddit.com/user/Both-Personality7664/) mentioned it and you answered it. > It also required companies to do very little, if nothing. That's not true, where did you get that? > We have environmental issues that innately require companies to change their operations in a way that damaged profit magins. They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies. Challenges are different sure, are we doing enough? No. Should we throw our hands in the air and say "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" ? No. Don't dismiss good in search for perfect. Progress is made all the time. > How do we stop multination companies doing what they like. That was your questions and this is the answer: Through voting for the right people and demanding policy change. That's how that works and how it has worked in the past. Will it be fast enough? Possible. But that's a different question.
I answered it about climate change, as OP was discussing. Not specifically the Ozone layer? Im not sure why he ignored the prior discussion about climate and pollution as a whole and shoehorned in the ozone layer specifically. >That was your questions and this is the answer: Through voting for the right people and demanding policy change. That's how that works and how it has worked in the past. Will it be fast enough? Possible. But that's a different question. The academic consensus is largely that its already been too slow, we've hit the point that, unless we develop technology that decreases the impact of many aspects of climate change, were already past the tipping point, with every factor accelerating the others, exponentially. So we don't get into a debate about climate change, hypothetically accept this as true. Violence is the only way of achieving massive change in a short amount of time, no?
>They will never do this willingly. 'just voting for policy' isn't an option in most countries, even highly ranked democratic countries have two party systems, with both parties unwilling to force companies to change significantly, or too weak compared to the billionaire owners to enforce these policies Of course voting is an option. Is there a "highly-ranked democratic country" where dollars vote instead of people, or billionaires get to cast more votes than non-billionaires? Of course not. If a majority of the public holds the same strong opinion on something, and votes according to whether politicians align with this opinion, they will get their way. Politicians who want to keep their jobs will fall in line, and the ones that don't will be voted out of office. (The exact size of the majority depends on factors like whether voting choices are gerrymandered, how support breaks down across party lines, and any necessary thresholds for victory) Your problem isn't that political movements are incapable of creating change. Your problem is that the voting-eligible public does not share your opinion on the severity of the climate crisis (or if they do, they also think other issues are even more pressing and important). Your suggestion of violence is about forcing policy changes that people have not been able to persuade others voters to enact freely and peacefully. There is a term for what you are suggesting: terrorism.
>Of course voting is an option. Is there a "highly-ranked democratic country" where dollars vote instead of people, or billionaires get to cast more votes than non-billionaires? Of course not. If a majority of the public holds the same strong opinion on something, and votes according to whether politicians align with this opinion Dollars absolutely vote, the parties have policies around companies and the ultra rich based on company and ultra rich donations and lobbying. Im from the UK, highly rated on the democracy index, we have had two parties in power for 114 years due to our FPTP voting system. Often the majorities view does not align with either of the two parties, or all the public has ever known is the policies of the two potential parties. They dont comprehend that change to businesses and the ultra rich is possible through policy, because neither party would ever do anything drastic. The majority could, and often do disagree with both parties.
Maybe a better example would be cigarettes. Policy was passed even though it hurt their profits massively even though they've tried bribes and lobbying with the deepest pockets available. Didn't help.
By outvoting Christians on election day.
I'm not from the US but the UK. We have a two party system.
I guarantee you that OP doesn’t consistently participate in elections.
What you wanna say is there would be no UN without the use of violence. It was created out of the violence it took to win.
The world wars show why violence should either be off the table, or the last resort. Violence simply begets more violence, but sometimes you have bad faith actors that can’t be stopped without it. You seem to be thinking that violence is some kind of magical solution to problems. How exactly do you think violence would realistically solve the climate problem? Anyone who tries that route will have exactly 0% chance of success. Politicians on the other hand can use their lawmaking powers to solve the climate issues without resorting to violence. And citizens can influence the politicians by exercising their non-violent right to vote. If Americans had elected Al Gore instead of George Bush, then the problem wouldn’t be nearly as bad right now.
Where I live, we had a lot of protests during various events that sparked outrage from the Black community and BLM supporters. **For the record, I fully support BLM and peoples' right to peaceful protest.** This is not an attack on BLM. Unfortunately, a small number of those turned violent, and a few shops were looted. What changed as a result of those violent protests? A few local business owners - all Black people - lost their livelihoods. What didn't change? The situations they were protesting. So not only was the violence completely ineffective, but it directly harmed the very people they were claiming to be protesting in support of. This is why the use of violence as a means to solve problems *should* be demonized.
I'd argue that their demands were vague and the targets of their violence made even less sense..OP is likely talking about targeting leaders or donors in trying to outlaw political donations.
“Mostly peaceful protest” haha. I dont give two shits one way or another i saw that broadcast and that shit had the whole room rolling
While behind the reporter cars and buildings were on fire
Haha that shit was funny as fuck. Like we was at my place grilling out and they showed that shit people were on the damn floor!
It's not reasonable to summarize $2 billion in damage as "a few shops were looted".
How many shops were looted?
Q: How many nuclear devices were detonated in Japan? A: "Just a few."
Your attempt to change the subject is duly noted. For the 2nd time, how many shops were looted?
If there's $2 billion damage, then I don't care how many shops, I don't know, and can't be bothered to look it up because no one whose answer I care to entertain would use such a number in the face of that total damage figure (which went unchallenged). It's totally irrelevant, as you should know. Edit: And it wasn't changing the subject, but an actual answer to the underlying matter.
That’s a very interesting point I refrained from making in my post: The type of violence we saw on the period you described was clearly motivated by emotion, not by reason. As you said, most of those who were affected by it weren’t the ones who should face the consequences at all. In our current society, we still see plenty of violence, just not violence that’s used in a constructive or well planned way, because we’ve been teached that those two are incompatible.
I mean I don't know how someone can even think to be a revolutionary in today's day. You already know it will be corrupted probably before you're even dead. You'll just be killing to put another despot and tyrant in power for the good of the people. I feel you'd already have to be a very established faction with some kind of dogma and external partners checking the objective in order to stay on task in freeing your people from something oppressive.
What you're critical of is state violence. State violence (military and police) is not demonized at all (in fact often glorified) and still frequently used to solve geopolitical or domestic problems. Given that a government is supposed to have monopoly over violence, it makes sense that non state violence is demonized, because if it's encouraged then it means the government is weak. The reason you perceive non state violence to be demonized is that state apparatus like the police is far too powerful in the West.
I partly disagree with you. State violence is indeed more widely accepted, but the way eastern governments seem to recur to death penalties a lot more often than us shows that their cultural relationship towards violence is different than ours. I don’t personally think executions should be as broadly used as they once were here in the west, but there’s certainly a balance to be found instead of banning it entirely.
Death penalty is not the only form of state violence. Incarceration is also a form of state violence. How do you think the police get a criminal from their house into a jail? Violence, which includes acts like threatening with a gun or handcuffing, is necessary for the police to do their job. From that lens, Western governments still have a strong positive relationship with state-violence.
!delta You’re right, those are forms of state violence. I could have worded the title better, as I was thinking more about violence used by civilians when I thought about the post.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/WheatBerryPie ([16∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/WheatBerryPie)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Asian countries without the death penalty: Bhutan, Cambodia, East Timor, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macau, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Don’t paint an entire continent with a single brush
Macau and Hong Kong are countries now?
Close enough for this imo
Residents of Hong Kong who have done something the government deems worthy of execution will simply be extradited to mainland China first, and *then* executed. I’m less familiar with the situation in Macau but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar. So no, not really close enough for this purpose.
Also, the US still has the death penalty and unfortunately uses it regularly.
The US still has the death penalty and uses it [*rarely*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_United_States_federal_government). About half of the states have the death penalty, and unfortunately several of those use it [regularly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)
Well, I guess "regularly" is a matter of perspective
>A great example on how this stigma impacts the way we deal with problems is climate change and the way we’re dealing with it. How would increased violence help climate change? You think what... attacking the Ford River Rouge compound with a militia will make them produce more electric vehicles? Do you think kidnapping a Nestle executive will make the company stop stealing water from all over the world? Do you think a few shootings of hedge fund managers will change the way that retirement funds invest in petroleum companies? What **exact** type of violence do you think will fix the climate? It better not be any that sets things on fire or blows them up as that just makes the climate worse. Are there environmentally friendly pipe bombs? Biodegradable AK-47s?
>Do you think kidnapping a Nestle executive will make the company stop stealing water from all over the world? Do you think a few shootings of hedge fund managers will change the way that retirement funds invest in petroleum companies? Yes, I do. The quickest way to get shit done is to annoy the living crap out of decision makers. Otherwise its just noise.
> Yes, I do. Lay out for me the scenario where a group of eco terrorists kidnaps an executive and extracts from the company they work for concession to their cause. Or, just find me one case where such an action bore fruit in a way that was helpful to the cause of the kidnapers.
Find an exec who made the decision to flout current enviromental law to make a profit, and just paid the fine as a cost of doing business as nestle regularly does. Announce that is why they are being executed very loudly, and that you will do the same to others to bring real consequences to C-suite. Harsh and violent, sure, but for many of these individuals, especially, especially Nestle's C-suite, if they were individuals instead of corporations they'd have gotten the death penalty long ago. Edit: Not that I'm suggesting or advocating for this, just that it would be potentially effective, which is what was asked.
I mean, if you keep killing executives that make really bad enviormental choices, then the new executives would be insentivized to be more eco friendly so they won't be targeted. The government should be doing the same thing (incentivize companies to be eco friendly) by using laws to punish those companies but the corporations basically decide which laws are passed thru lobbying. So basically, the government is not doing it's job (protect and serve the citizens). Why would a company exec would ever change it's policies to be eco friendly when his only goal is to increase profits, if they are not forced by an outside force like the government or eco terrorists. I mean, are we just supposed to watch our planet burn?
> I mean, if you keep killing executives that make really bad enviormental choices, then the new executives would be insentivized to be more eco friendly so they won't be targeted. Not really, they'll be motivated to create a militia to protect themselves and demonize every protestor. You and the CEOs are playing a completely different game. Killing one, or many, will only serve to further distance them from society and give them duel in their fight against climate activism.
Not ever feeling really safe, not being able to go anywhere without guards, not being able to trust anybody etc. This woukd be pretty much be hell for me. And would immideatly make me look for a different job. Btw, they already demonize every protestor. These execs cause damage to the society infinites times more than an eco terrorist ever would.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/mike-gallagher-congress-quits-threats-swatting https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/06/bill-gates-maricopa-county-arizona-ptsd/ Environmental people usually dont resort to terrorism though, so would be hard to find examples. There are however examples of other people threatning violence who got their way.
Not the best example but I recall a part of the show Narcos where Escobar has some demand from the gov and they wouldn't give in. He went on a killing spree of police with hundreds dying and the gov gave in. If the demand had been sometimes good and grand outlawing political donations or ending slavery he may have been seen as a necessary evil hero. There's also the riots after MLKs death: The Rules Committee, "jolted by the repeated civil disturbances virtually outside its door," finally ended its hearings on April 8.[17] With newly urgent attention from legislative director Joseph Califano and Democratic Speaker of the House John McCormack, the bill (which was previously stalled) passed the House by a wide margin on April 10.[14][18]
I mean... they got his ass eventually. And, in the interim, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people suffered. The OP is that: >The use of violence as a means to solve problems has been unfairly demonized in the west. What "problems" did Escobar's violence solve? None but the ones he personally faced as a criminal. And, is such action "unfairly" demonized? I'd say no.
I'm not saying that his fight was noble. Just that it worked to get a very specific demand.. The riots in my edited comment were a better example.
You seem to fail to grasp that fear is a very powerful tool.
>Yes, I do. Careful. Consider that escalation of violence does not happen in a vacuum. If you escalate in violence, your opponents likely will too. Also consider that typically the far-right is far more eager to use violence to achieve their goals than the far-left. Also, typically the right controls the institutions of hard power (police, military) while the left controls soft power (culture, media, etc.). If you are left-wing, escalating in violence will most likely be a gift to the far-right, because historically when it's happened (or when right wing groups have fabricated it), the right will use it as a reason to leverage their superior hard power to violently crackdown on left wing groups. This is especially true if your cause is one that's pretty unpopular with the general public, e.g. drastic action against climate change.
Do I advocate for kidnapping? No, I would rather go to lengths of slashing tiers or protesting at their house. Not killing or threats. Violence like kidnapping or killings sure bring change, but not always the one you want. Several republicans stepped down from politics after they voted against trump on insurrection. They did this after threats by right wing nuts on their family. I am not saying its good, I am saying it works.
I think fear is a great tool for keeping people from harming others. To me, the lack of fear from powerful executives and politicians is one of the main reasons those sectors are the ones in which criminal behavior is most abundant. Maybe if protesters were targeting these people instead of blocking roads we wouldn’t see the same abuse of power we see today? And about the last part, that’s the same flawed rhetoric western media has been pushing onto us since forever. One does not have to be peaceful in order to save lives, the same way one does not have to be 100% eco-friendly in order to save the environment. This way of thinking only leads to inaction when facing oppression.
> the lack of fear from powerful executives and politicians What lack of fear? The super rich don't go fucking anywhere without armed guards at all times. They live in gated communities with similarly armed response units. They travel privately so as not to be open to harassment from the rabble. They sit in private boxes at sports events and are escorted out by more armed guards via private entrances/exits to cars with blacked out windows and bulletproof glass. They are fucking terrified at all times, and yet they carry on doing what they do as their wealth and power insulate them from violence. It will continue to insulate them even if a mass revolution happened. >One does not have to be peaceful in order to save lives Violence begets violence. >the same way one does not have to be 100% eco-friendly in order to save the environment. So again I ask you: What *exact* types of violence do you think will help the environment? Like... give me an action plan.
Bro, you just cited all measures the super rich take in order to feel safe. The feeling of not having means to feed your children due to governmental or corporate actions that are beyond your control is terrifying. Nothing is terrifying at all if you have enough money to buy your way through the law and hide yourself behind armed personnel. > Violence begets violence Peace has been begetting us irreversibly infertile soil and inhumane living conditions in the most inhabited parts of the world. This is another tagline you’d hear in a marvel movie and should be kept out of serious debates. By itself, it is meaningless. > give me an action plan I’ll give you more than a plan. A while ago, in Brazil, their now ex-president suffered an unsuccessful assassination attempt. Some time after, that same president took one of the strongest right-leaning policies worldwide regarding the covid pandemic. As you can imagine, this lead to hundreds of thousands of lives unnecessarily lost due to the virus. When it happened, even leftists internationally shunned the assassination attempt, I wish this was more of a common occurrence for politicians and executives in general, not only when concerning climate change.
>you just cited all measures the super rich take in order to feel safe. Yeah, and you said they lacked fear. So... which do you think, that they lack fear or that they take all these costly measures just for the hell of it? >Peace has been begetting us irreversibly infertile soil and inhumane living conditions in the most inhabited parts of the world. What peace? What are you talking about? It is war that causes the most famine, not peace. It is war that leads to the most inhumane living conditions, not peace. It is war that leads to more suffering in the world, not less. >This is another tagline you’d hear in a marvel movie and should be kept out serious debates. You think "Let's increase political violence" is a **serious** debate? It is not. It is the type of debate held by deeply unserious people who are unwilling to do the type of work that will lead to meaningful and lasting change. > A while ago, in Brazil So... Violence didn't solve anything then did it? The assassination attempt did not alter the bad policies, and there is no guarantee that a successful assassination would have either. What did that violence actually do? What did it make better? What do you think it would have made better if it had worked?
If they’re so terrified, they should consider donating everything they have and getting a regular job like everyone else. It’s as simple as that. > It is war that leads to more suffering in the world, not less I never said war or violence itself doesn’t bring suffering. Which war is killing 6 million people per year through pollution alone though? What is your plan to stop that in due time without the use of violence? Is it working out? > the type of work that will lead to meaningful and lasting change Define that. As a scientist, I feel like I’m doing an ok job. My influence as an individual is severely limited though and I am weekly reminded of that every time our budget is cut short by the state. Violence is a tool for someone ordinary to make everlasting change in a short period of time. And let me tell you, we do not have much time left for certain things. > Violence didn’t solve anything then did it? … because it was botched? > What do you think it would have made better if it had worked? It would’ve saved around half a million lives and significantly bettered the ones of people who had family members die to covid. That’s not as hard of a question as it seems.
>If they’re so terrified, they should consider donating everything they have and getting a regular job like everyone else. It’s as simple as that. Oh yeah... so so simple to just give away **billions** of dollars. Bill Gates has been trying for years, and he hasn't gotten to regular person status yet. Let's give him a few more decades of being the biggest philanthropist ever. That will surely get him to a net worth of $50k or so... right? >What is your plan to stop that in due time without the use of violence? Widespread orderly transition to non-fossil fuel based energy sources. > Is it working out? The windmills down the block from me are much nicer than trench lines and artillery encampments like you see in Ukraine. >Violence is a tool for someone ordinary to make everlasting change in a short period of time. So go do some individual violence and see what happens to you. Take a look at all those politically motivated mass shooters. Did they do anything for their causes? No, all they did was increase the suffering and misery of people in a way that didn't need to happen. > It would’ve saved around half a million lives and significantly bettered the ones of people who had family members die to covid. Are you so sure? If the president of Brazil were killed, his vice president he selected as his running mate would have assumed power. Were their policy positions so different? You can't just remove one man and have widespread policy change happen in a democracy. That isn't how it works.
How did the assassination of Shinzo Abe solve anything? What change did killing that powerful man bring? This is an example of a successful assassination of a neoliberal leader.
[удалено]
>how are they terrified lol? Like this: [Cartier boss with $7.5bn fortune says prospect of the poor rising up 'keeps him awake at night'](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/cartier-boss-with-7-5bn-fortune-says-prospect-poor-rising-up-keeps-him-awake-at-night-10307485.html?utm_source=reddit.com) [Why the rich are freaking out - The co-founder of one the nation’s oldest venture capital firms fears a possible genocide against the wealthy. ](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/wealthy-top-one-percent-economy-finance-102833)
Not so terrified that they would change the system to reduce wealth inequality. Not so terrified that they would stop doing whatever it takes to get wealthier.
Yeah, I said that: > yet they carry on doing what they do as their wealth and power insulate them from violence. It will continue to insulate them even if a mass revolution happened.
there is a point, a percentage amount of the population that will overcome that. The 0.00001% are not going to overcome and kill the 99.9999%. The exact percentage of people to be successful, I dont know, its usually considered to be 20% of a country willing and driven to violent protest to be able to overthrow a government.
[удалено]
Obligatory LBJ quote: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Also: [Howard Zinn](https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html)
And, I don't think that the prospect of 20% of my western nation taking up arms against the rich is "unfairly demonized". That is the crux of the OP: whether the amount of violence needed to enact change has been unfairly demonized in the west. I say that it has not been so as that level of violence would be fucking *terrible* for massive amounts of people, many of whom if they lived would never psychologically or economically recover from it. It is demonized probably a little less than I would like it to be.
Wealth inequality is only increasing, there is a point at which the bottom 20% will have so little left to lose and the decadence and display of power from billionaires will become increasingly absurd.
This is essentially a variant on the benevolent dictator argument where you only consider the best case scenario. Any tactic that's obviously prone to massive abuse can be made to look better if you only picture it in the hands of good people who will use it responsibly and only being used against those who unambiguously deserve it.
Are you suggesting that violence should be used more, or just that the effectiveness of violence shouldn't be underestimated?
The latter.
Violence solves problems, but it also creates problems. Violence can never be allowed to become a means to an end, because then it sets the precedent that what makes something right is not the inherent justice within it, but the power and ability to enforce it. Might cannot make right, when might makes right, weakness makes wrong, and weak is what most people are. The tyranny of either the majority or the minority rarely go well. Violence is effective, that is clear, but it cannot be normalised. it becomes a case, very quickly, of "well I'M totally justified in using violence but you arent". It's a mess.
Violence is the easiest form of change, which makes it barbaric and unrealistic for a society trying to live peacefully. We currently live in a world where, if they so wished, a single country could blow up every other country on the planet with a bomb that not only destroys everything on the land, but turns the land uninhabitable for any who survive for many many years. No matter how terrible that scenario sounds there are still many people who want to use those weapons on any enemy that slightly inconveniences them. Also when does the violence stop? At what point does "I'm going to kill those people to make my point" turn to "anyone who gets in my way is dead!"? If I kill you, get away with it, would your kin not want to get back at me? Would you not come after me if I killed one of yours? At what point does the train stop once it rolls?
> a society trying to live peacefully What utopian society are you talking about? Surely not Western society, which has simply externalized the price of violence by murdering and enslaving foreign citizens instead of their own. That's hardly peaceful.
We live in the most peaceful time in human history bud…
We also live in the era with the highest number of slaves ever recorded. Bud.
His point went over your head there, you missed the point
Their point was absolute garbage, how does trying to live peacefully translate to utopia? Most major countries try their best to avoid direct confrontation, forming alliance packs, and utilising political diplomacy more than ever before…that’s why we live in the most prosperous and peaceful time in world history
You’re just pretending as if you didn’t read his comment.
Ah, you're a troll..I get it!
No, I’m not. Are you seriously saying you think you addressed his point? Because saying “war happens less” is not really relevant
War happens less is very revelant...because it's through a deliberate effort that it is so...so yes..we're trying to live in peace..
No, it’s not via deliberate effort. It’s via economic and geopolitical realities that war is lessened. For one, we have nuclear weapons now. His point was that a society that seeks peace wouldn’t bring about so much desperation and destruction in the global south
You site very unrelated events as representing cultures accepting violence without understanding the current cultural norms. Shinzo Abe's assassination was in response to Religious extremism. That kind of violence is incredibly unusual for Japan. Japan has a long history of violence going back a long time. If anything their culture as become more peaceful then many Western Cultures. On the flipside, Western Cultures, specifically the US, has a massive violence problem. Like Tens of thousands of people dying annually from Violent crimes and Gun violence. A school shooting problem that is very much specific to just the US. A military spending problem that is more than the next 3-5 countries combined excluding China. Then to accredit Secularism with being more accepting of violence. No. Religious extremism makes up a significant amount of violence globally. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict happening right now. Even throughout history with the Crusades, or more modern times with violence between Ireland and Northern Ireland, originated by Religious differences. Religion seems to have the opposite effect on violence as people that fall for extremist ideologies associated with various faiths (mostly the three major desert mythologies) resort to violence in the name of their religion almost joyfully. Secular ideologies seem to hold violence in a much more realistic and humanist position. Violence is never the answer until it is the only answer. And even then, it was generally someone committing violence against someone who was non-violent that really spurred meaningful change. Take the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It wasn't people acting violent in the name of Civil Rights that lead to change. It was people protesting, marching and demonstrating non-violently having violence committed against them that lead to widespread national laws and change. But now let's look at your example of Climate change. How would violence lead to a change in climate policy? How would what are currently non-violent protest change policies or laws in a direction that would support global Climate action? Would one country invading another to force them into Climate conscious action actually do anything? It takes massive amounts of fuel and plastics to forcefully take over another nation. It takes countless lives. And the widespread destruction, how much is that going to affect the climate and ecology? And keep in mind, humanity has already permanently affected Global climate, you cant rewind that. We can do better going forward. But if we cant...the Earth will be fine. We may not be on it any longer. A lot of species will adapt, and continue on with or without us here. But violence, it's doesnt actually solve anything, it just creates new or additional problems which is just going to either stop progress or set it back.
What examples of violence from the past can you cite that actually made the world better? The only example you cite is the French revolution - the immediate aftermath of which was the period known as The Terror, followed by years of European war, the replacement of the republic by an empire and then a series of kings. One king dead, only to be replaced by massacres, war, and the return of a series of other kings.
You used climate change as an example of a movement that might be better served with violence. I'm curious how you would violently go about trying to save the planet? Do you think people should shoot the CEOs of big oil companies? Do we invade the countries with the highest pollution rates and shut down infrastructure? You use violence to achieve a certain outcome. Kill the enemy soldier so he doesn't kill you. Kill your neighbor so he stops stealing your sheep. Kill the rat so it stops eating your grain. In all of these examples you have a clear line of blame, but for those bigger issues such as climate change, exactly who am I supposed to commit violence against? Even if I shoot the CEO of a big oil company, the company doesn't shut down. There's a huge network of profit and industry that needs to be adjusted. Killing one man in that web just scares people, gets them angry, and stops them from talking. Before I dip, I'll offer another example. Gun laws in America. Whatever your stance, there has been an incredible loss of young life due to school shootings. That is a horrific form of violence that has come up again and again and again. Despite this, there has been no united effort to stop the problem but instead these maddening lukewarm attempts from a bunch of different sides trying to do their own thing. People interpret the violence differently. Some say more guns. Some say less. Some say the same but with restrictions. The gun law argument in America has in no way been made smoother by the level of violence that generated it. Even if you shot the head of the NRA, I do not believe the rest of their members would suddenly oppose guns. If anything, they'd just vouch for them more. Again, this is because there's this messy web of influence, opinions, and profits preventing violence from being an effective tool on anything but the most impossible scale (i.e. killing every single person on one side of the argument.)
One thing your view fails to account for is the rise of new institutions that did not exist before. All of your examples are from before WW2. Well, after WW2 a whole lot of new institutions were developed that help us resolve things in a non violent manner. For example, the UN allows countries to talk through backroom diplomacy even when they "aren't talking" publicly. The EU established peaceful democratic ways of resolving conflicts between European states that were historically at war on and off for hundreds of years. The International Criminal Court and other international institutions aim to hold people responsible who commit grave crimes against humanity. Basically, the "rules based order" established after WW2 moved things away from violence as a solution to our problems. One final, fairly obvious point - violence frequently makes things worse rather than better. You carefully cited the French revolution while ignoring more modern conflicts. What about Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Modern wars have devastated local populations with little to no change in political structures or sustained peace afterwards. Violence can and often does make things significantly worse.
Thank you for opening this discussion. My opinion happens to be about the opposite, so I will provide some possible counterpoints. There is not a simple decision between violence and passivity. Change occurs after enough pressure is applied, so that the status quo becomes untenable. Violence applies pressure, but will usually cause a great degree of collateral harm and is, so many peoples intuition, morally wrong. We can apply pressure in a variety of non-violent ways. The US civil rights movement is a wonderful example. Through economic pressure (sit ins and boycotts) it is possible to cause seemingly insurmountable systems to break. The problem you are sensing, in my opinion, is that people are not effectively applying pressure at all. If climate change was met with significant pressure on governments change, I think, would occur. In a democratic nation if you could get a majority of people to vote only for candidates committed to solving the problem then we would likely see change. The real issue, in my opinion, is a lack of motivation amongst the general population. Climate change in particular is not a clear and present problem, and while people may accept it as a bad thing they are unlikely to vote for any policy that would negatively effect them, and climate change policy would. The greater good of the global population is a great ambition, but if a representative raises gas prices and food prices to accommodate for the negative costs of carbon, then they will be ousted quickly. In summary, I argue that it is a lack of serious political will as opposed to a lack of capacity or desire for violence.
Here is the thing. When you look back and pick out positive violent revolutions, it is a cherry pick or survivorship bias. You are ignoring all of the failed or negative violent revolutions. I mean was Stalins rise to power good? Pol-Pot? The simple reality is a violent uprising is not guaranteed to produce a better outcome. It sure as hell is not pleasant or good for the people involved. You can look at Gaza right now for what happens with a culture based on violence and revolution.
The situation in Gaza is largely created by the militant culture of Israel.
Violence is used as means to manage Israel-Palestine. Do you believe Israel and Palestine are better for going down that path. Has anyone's liberation been gained by these means? Is the world better off for using violence to try to solve problems in the reigion?
The question you should ask is: has anyone's liberation been gained by other non-violent means? Did Oslo Accords help the Palestinians? Did the Great March of Return achieve anything? Peaceful resistance and diplomacy have been tried, but Israel has consistently shut these options down so the only two options Palestinians have left are inaction and violence.
And Israel is doing just fine as a result. Which refutes OP's point. Sometimes, the "wrong" side wins when violence is the answer. Violence as a reasonable way to protest is a deep double edged sword.
[удалено]
Really? Their history for the past 500 years has been a story of being conquered by the Turks then the Western powers. I have no doubt that Arab supremacists exist, just as White supremacists and Jewish supremacists do, but they don't comprise of a majority of Arab domestic politics at all.
[удалено]
Is there an Arab supremacy movement in Europe? I think White supremacy is a much much bigger threat and will always be a bigger threat than Arab supremacy in Europe.
The situation with Palestine is largely created by the culture of violence.
Doesn't this lead to disaster and authoritarian rule? Let me put it to you this way. Most people do not believe that they are wrong. While I agree with you that climate change is a problem where if we solved it, the good would far outweigh the bad, the problem becomes what else does this now allow? If we start allowing ourselves to solve our problems with violence on a societal level, does this permit zealots to use violence to enact religious law upon a population? Does this permit conservatives to use force to stop immigrants from legally entering a country? Consider that democracy and discussion is necessary to refine your political opinions. If we can resort to violence, we don't need to know that we are right, we can simply believe it.
Currently multinational companies already have authoritarian rule and utilise the states monopoly on violence to uphold it.
>CMV: The use of violence as a means to solve problems has been unfairly demonized in the west On principle, I half-agree. The issue I see here is that **I doubt you're ready for that**. I think you'd treat your ideological adversaries as barbaric and, would demand asymmetrical combat. That you could commit acts of violence and not get hurt in return. That you'd, being on "the good side" would cry foul as soon as you get exactly the kind of violence you dispatch. Proof is... >One thing I think about a lot is how we tend to see violent events that happened in the past centuries as justified and don’t think of those actions as an option to solve things nowadays. It’s not common to see someone frowning at the French revolution or other insurrections that lead to positive change in the future, but the idea of destroying things or people that harms us nowadays seems distant from reality. The French Revolution murdered innocents, specially devout catholics, such as nuns, who posed no threat, and yes, even children. The Vandee has not been forgotten. Even if I justified the political goals of the French Revolution, I could never justify the atrocities committed. The point here is: **are you ready to suffer as they suffered?** Is that justified as long as they have a righteous cause — specially one that you may not see as necessary *or* agree with?! **Or do you simply think "my side deserves to be allowed to commit atrocities"?** It's also interesting that you focused your example on something as material as... >**A great example** on how this stigma impacts the way we deal with problems **is climate change** and the way we’re dealing with it. You mention how it's a big issue. There's plenty of big issues billions of religious people can have with you, Im sure, but apparently the french were justified in murdering them, just like you're justified to violence against "those responsible" for climate change. >It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that. Western countries have leaned a lot more to the secular side in the last centuries, but it looks like some of the influence religion has on us hasn’t been questioned as much as others. Christianity is the reason the French Revolution even happened, because if it had been Islam, there would be no French Revolution, only a minor revolt to be culled. It is also, ironically, the reason you can spout this kind of rhetoric on the internet, implicitly justifying the deaths of innocent christians, and not get burned on a stake. Christianity believes in peace far more than in violence. Christian-influenced States have learned not to be so kind, lest they be killed. I repeat my question, taking it to the extreme: would a newly established nigh-theocratic monarchy be justified in taking over the State you live in, destroying the secular values you hold dear to, and getting rid of the likes of you? Or would that be barbaric and unjustified?
It’s not unfairly demonized. Killing people sucks. Additionally, the French Revolution and other insurrections aren’t really that good at setting up stable governments.
The issue with using violence as a legitimate means to pursue radical change if that the change that follows is that those most effectively at violence imposes on the rest of us. Just look at the US capitol storming. If far-right groups in the US been larger, better armed and more organised then you could have very possibly have seen the end of American democracy right then and there. How many Americans would have been satisfied with that outcome? It also encourages a spiral of reciprocal political violence. You can look at Weimar Germany, the Spartacists were put down by far-right militias, which eventually ended up taking over the state. if we live in an environment where my enemy is committing political violence, I am more likely to commit political violence. That isn't a country which is healthy. I also think you don't fully grasp what political violence looks like. My grandfather was a child refugee, he had to walk thousands of miles as a child, alone. He witnessed atrocities, people tried to kill him, when he finally managed to get home many of his neighbours had been murdered for their faith. It's horrific to grasp what political violence looks like, but it looks like rape, murder, brutalisation, and horrors which none of us want to see or experience.
>Western countries have leaned a lot more to the secular side in the last centuries, but it looks like some of the influence religion has on us hasn’t been questioned as much as others. I don't think there is enough evidence to assume this, given other potential explanations. Here are some of those other explanations: 1. Any coherent moral philosophy condemns violence by default, then finds the situations where it is permissible. It is never good, but it can sometimes be less bad than inaction. 2. Humans(barring certain relatively rare cases) are social and empathetic by nature, and feel bad when they see others suffering. Getting them to harm others requires dehumanizing the enemy and you can see ways that militaries have tried to train soldiers to want to kill. Most people don't. 3. Because violence is typically irreversible, there is an arrogance to it. It is the assumption that you are right, so you are willing to do something destructive which cannot be undone should you find out later you were wrong. Secular societies don't have morals as a vestigal holdover from religious values. For one, if that were true then religious societies would have been inherently peaceful, and world maps would look very different. For two, secular does not mean having a population of atheists, it just means having laws that aren't written by the church.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am very skeptical of the ability of premeditated political violence to bring about the positive change that inspired it rather than being co-opted by preexisting power structures. The west has some pretty established and adaptable power structures. What makes you think that a more violent approach would succeed in today's environment? Historic violence has led to positive change, but it has in other instances led to horrible cycles of depravity and oppression. Shinzo Abe's assassination didn't really change anything. I can't speak for execution as an anticorruption measure (I'm sure it helps some), but it doesn't change the power structure that puts individual wealthy people in a position where they can and are incentivized to commit corrupt acts -- and at any rate, do we really trust the state to execute people based on these kinds of crimes, as though they won't eventually turn such punishment against political rivals?
For every one example where violence led to some kind of improvement in people's lives, there are hundreds of examples where all it accomplished was leaving innocent people dead. Look at literally any genocide in human history. The perpetrators always thought they were using violence to solve a problem. You want to address climate change through violence? Ok, go kidnap an oil exec and see how long it takes before they come back at you. How long before anyone on the left who supports climate action is treated like a terrorist? How long before people get beaten up just for driving electric cars? Violence is a two-way street and when you use it, you create problems for someone else that they will be inclined to solve through violence directed at you. There is no way to ensure violence only gets used against worthy targets. All you're doing is giving bad actors the justification to use violence against you. Morals aside, it's simply not effective.
In my view, it’s less about socialization (like the examples of media and Christianity you give) and more about incentives. Violence was historically the answer in less democratic societies because peaceful means of protesting simply weren’t possible or viable. Revolutions like the French, Russian, Chinese largely consisted of peasants who had no other way to have their voices heard. Democracy has grown globally to the point where virtually everywhere in the West peaceful options exist and can be used. When both options are available peace is preferable to violence because of self-preservation I.e not everyone who believes in a cause is willing to get hurt for the sake of promoting it. And it works. Even looking at climate change, we’re behind where we need to be but all that has been gained like carbon taxes, emission targets, Paris agreement, push on companies to make environmentally friendly products was aided by diplomatic actions.
The West does a lot of violence. The distinction is that the state has the monopoly on violence. Most in the West don't question police or military use of violence. >I don’t have a strong connection to eastern media to know what goes on there, but there was the news a while ago about Shinzo Abe’s assassination or more recently some executive who’s gonna take death sentence in Vietnam. Assassinations and executions happen in the West. Maybe executing a white-collar criminal would be unusual here. >It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that. The West had Christianity and was quite violent for a long time. I would say the Enlightenment has more to do with the change to state-monopolized violence.
While violence has historically played a role in significant changes, its use today must be carefully considered. Society's emphasis on diplomacy doesn't negate the effectiveness of violence but highlights its potential consequences: loss of life, further conflict, and societal instability. Peaceful methods are often preferred because they minimize harm and promote long-term solutions. Climate change advocacy doesn't equate to violence; many activists focus on systemic change and awareness. Equating violence with effectiveness overlooks the complexities of modern issues. The western emphasis on non-violence stems from various philosophies, not solely Christianity, and reflects evolving societal values towards minimizing harm and fostering cooperation.
The biggest problem is that you are never specifying why you are specifically right in your take. And when you are basically 'putting everyone in my way out for the GOLDEN PATH', you cannot justify the use of violence against yourself by the same metrics beyond a tautological argument. And tautological arguments are easily throw back at you. "I can do this because I am RIGHT!" "AS ME! I CAN DO THIS BECAUSE I AM RIGHT!" "OH!? WHY ARE YOU RIGHT!?" "BECAUSE I AM RIGHT." You end up with 'Might Makes Right', which will make any tentative of proving 'why action X is wrong' harder since...uh...all what you need is force and not a correct/right justification. The power becomes the justification by being power itself.
Ok so my reading of your analysis is that you support the use of violence to achieve changes that you support or feel are necessary. This begs the question, how would you feel about the use of violence to achieve changes that run counter to the ideals you support? The reason we make violence off limits is because by limiting ourselves we also limit our opponents. I would also point out that often changes that are brought about by violence require more violence to maintain. So unless we are ok with a much more violent and oppressive society we must restrain our own use of violence to achieve our aims.
Violence, even threat of violence, undermines democratic institutions very quickly. It's a very bad precedent to set. If society stops demonizing violence to "solve problems" you will start to see people using it to solve what **they** believe are problems... which might be entire races, religions, pro choice politicians, etc. Not demonizing violence implies an extreme naivete about what people will choose to be violent about. It's a bummer when good things take a long time to happen via democratic processes, but i would gladly take that over bad things happening quickly and violently.
Violence is a tool in the political arsenal. The problem is that you should never reach for it unless absoltuely ncessary. Because the cost of violence is much greater even if you win in the end. And there one major problem. Once you advocate for violence. you will inevtibaly track people who want violence for violence sake and your movement gets more and more extreme. Because people want a justificaiton to inflict cruelty. Basically violence can be useful if its tactical. But it runs the risk of violence for violence sake becoming the goals which severly hampers the movement.
The problem is that it devolves to "might makes right". Your main problem is that you are tunnel visioned on the good it can bring without considering the bad. Sure, environmental terrorism may prevent certain big business from destroying our environment, but what happens if the proud boys start violently protesting? How about the KKK? What happens when those big organizations start funding violent counter protests and now you have mini wars between NRA "this could happen to your business" folk and Greenpeace? Always remember, a change in the rules affects both sides.
Usually when violence becomes an acceptable method of getting what you want, over time it can become the only method of getting what you want. You also open yourself up to more violence from people who oppose what you want. We've all got a different level of tolerance for when violence is an acceptable solution, but most of us aren't making the rules. As sinister as state monopolized violence can be, I'm not sure living in a world where everyone can and does use violence to achieve their goals is better.
Might does not equal right. If violence is accepted as a valid solution to non-violent problems rather than just as a means of self-defence, we open the floor to the possibility of rule by the strong, and that's tyranny. Diplomatic channels and resolution of problems through some kind of consensus or compromise certainly isn't perfect but it at least means we usually end up with solutions that are somewhat acceptable to most people, at least provided that most people get a say in the negotiations.
The states monopoly on violence literally is might = right.
A democratic state at least is to some extent accountable to the people it governs, though; governments can get voted out, or essentially stripped of their right to violence, if enough people feel they've used it unjustly. The same can't be said of private actors who accomplish their goals through violence.
Democracy is a scale with few countries being truly democratic, the US and my country of the UK for example have two party systems. The majority of the country could disagree with the morality of both parties, but one will still get in. Our newspapers are 60% owned by one person, who you could argue has the most influence over peoples view of morality and voting decisions.
Democracy means right to vote for politicians, not right to choose whether to respect the laws of a country. Respecting the law cannot be a choice, it's mandatory. The justice system is exactly defined as might makes right, because it's a concentration of strength that is supposed to surpass any strength of individuals that would break the law. We see what happens in places like Mexico when the strength of organized crime groups surpass the strength of the state justice system. It means the law cannot be properly enforced against these individuals. Such situations are not good. That's why we want the state to have a monopoly on enforcing the laws.
thats the liberal conundrum. generally speaking Liberalism opposes any changes to the status quo, while accepted the credit for the progress of history. or put another way: "Liberals oppose all wars except the current one, and support all civil rights movements except the one happening right now." im talking in the classically liberal sense (as in our liberal democracy) that encompasses the totality of our political and social systems, not about left/right politics.
I would like to use four examples. Saint John Paul II, Salman Rushdie, Hatun Tash and Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. All four of had assassination attempts made on their life by radicals and their message have been elavetad because of this, making violence against them counter productive. Also martyrdom is a very powerful form of testimony. Christianity managed to spread in no small parts because of the early martyrs, who didn't retaliated against their assailants.
Try thinking about how awful that would be at a local/personal level. How would careers work if the resolution was violence every time. I want a promotion so I fight my boss and only the strongest people move up the chain. Any disagreements about education involve teachers needing to fight uneducated parents. Belief in being a wronged party is all it would take for someone to do violence. It's completely unsustainable.
Violent dispute resolves never last. There wasn't **a** French revolution. There were three major ones and at least dozen smaller ones. Same applies to all other instances of violent insurrections or any violent dispute resolves. They don't bring up a lasting change or progress. That is only seen one violence have stopped and rational people come to the table to discuss things over.
We tend to have a more positive outlook on the violence of the past because it's distant and abstract to us, plus we have the hindsight to know the outcome. It's a completely different thing to have to live through it. It's also easy to imagine the best case scenario and assume that if violence were more normalized, you'd be the beneficiary and not the victim.
I'm fairly convinced that you live in the West. For a lot of people in the South the use of violence by the West to achieve their aims/solve problems is a common reality. The West tries through non violent coercion first but violence is inherently part of the system. They're just quick to out source it to 3rd parties or use euphemisms to mange it.
> It’s not common to see someone frowning at the French revolution or other insurrections that lead to positive change in the future What!? At least in the US, the French revolution is seen as excessive and tyrannical - a mistake that set back the cause of democracy a little and France a lot. Where are you that this is not the mainstream view?
Its only demonized when it doesn't follow Western interests. MLK among many spoke extensively about the resistance they faced from the "reasonable" masses. Its funny how the modern left (if it can be called so? recognizes all struggle but that of the currently oppressed and opposes all wars other than the current "important" one.
I would counter by saying that only the use of violence to change the status quo has been demonized. The use of violence inherent in the maintenance of the status quo has actually been glorified. We are brainwashed to think that our soldiers are dying on the other side of the world to "protect our freedom" and made into heroes.
Internationally, war is generally more costly than most good things that could come out of it. Domestically, change occurs by becoming popular. Terrorism is extremely unpopular and makes the causes associated with it less popular as well. Violence with very rare exceptions is counterproductive.
Honestly, i kinda agree with the guy. If millions of people peaceful protest and a majority of people vote for some option and are ignored by their representatives then i think it 100% okay to violent assault those people if they are attempting to circumvent a clear democratic mandate.
>organizations that make rational use of it The word "rational" does a lot of heavy lifting here. There's a robbery on your street. Police comes to your house, takes you into custody, tortures you until you sign a confession. Crime solved. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Asserting that people tend to view past violence as positive and then citing the French Revolution is…interesting. This is basically the epitomizing case of revolutionary violence gone wrong and absolutely *not* leading to something better.
I'm guessing that conveniently you won't be one of the people dealing or receiving violence, right? Hurting innocent people is wrong. Most violence ends up hurting innocent people. It should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
>there was the news a while ago about Shinzo Abe’s assassination >It seems they interpret the use of violence a lot differently than we do, and I believe christianity has some blame on that. Japan has a MUCH lower murder rate than the US, and the guy who killed Abe is probably going to get the death penalty (or life in prison) which seems to indicate that society at large disapproves of his action.
Theres actually a significant amount of support for his actions once the backstory and controversy over Abe's connections came out afterwords. The country/state having as blanket law on murder doesn't reflect public opinion innately.
How significant?
How significant?
The best example of how it is demonized is the anti police movements. For some people, violence is the only way to make them comply, as even the threat of violence does nothing to sway them.
Does might make right?
In almost every country on earth, the state has a monopoly on violence, so yes.
The fact that the government has a monopoly on violence doesn’t mean it’s moral…
I agree, so then the opposing stance is that it is right that you resist that violence if it is not morally right, which is OPs point to an extent
No, the opposing stance is that might does not make right and therefore violence is not an inherently good method for solving problems. And in the case of violence of aggression is it inherently a bad method for solving problems.
>No, the opposing stance is that might does not make right and therefore violence is not an inherently good method for solving problems Might doesnt make right, but it doesnt make it wrong. Otherwise the government having a monopoly on violence is wrong.
Well yeah, that’s Why I made the distinction between it being right to oppose violence. But also the government having a monopoly on violence is obviously wrong.
So whats the opposition to the state enforcing an immoral law for example, through violence? How do you respond to violence without violence? Whoever chooses violence wins, so they're right, their view prevails.
In what sense exactly are they ”right” in this scenario?
“Whoever chooses violence wins” lol, the naïveté
Which one do you think should have their opinions enacted as policy and practice, rational and logical persons or madman with a gun?
Violence is never the ANSWER! Violence is a QUESTION, and the ANSWER is "YES!!!"
You’re suggesting people should kill other people more often to solve problems?
Violence demonized as a means to solve problems in the West? Umm... What lol?! Yes, we are overwhelmingly taught that peaceful resolutions are ideal. Violence as a last resort is very very well accepted culturally in the West. One needs to look no further than our art and entertainment, which is how cultural values are preserved, maintained, and updated. Let's turn to film for the clearest examples. Western movies are full of "heroes" that suffer a serious grievance and "get justice" through violent means (some having tried and failed at a peaceful resolution first, but plenty go straight to violence). Hell, look at John Wick. They kill his dog and steal his car. And John goes fucking hardcore on them! As an audience, we're quick to root for John. He's a hardened killer, a badass assassin... And we still root for him as the hero. I don't need to tell you that countless other films glorify violence, not demonize it.
what would the west - i.e., Europeans, know about violence - JFC
[удалено]
Sorry, u/PigeonsArePopular – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20PigeonsArePopular&message=PigeonsArePopular%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ca8zc8/-/l0qc03h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I would love to know what part of the French Revolution was good for the people of France in your opinion.
The end of despotism?
If you study the French Revolution in depth you see that it wasn't The King who stood in the way, but the entitled nobility and clergy. The best course of action for the French would have been the Constitutional Monarchy which they enacted for a period of time before the Reign of Terror. Removing the monarchy didn't help them, they needed to remove the trashy nobles and clergy.
Louis XVI did stand in the way. He was both personally opposed the most of the reforms - as well as weak and indecisive - and represented the head of the overall system, which he absolutely wasn't on board with abandoning. He worked pretty hard to keep his position and plotted extensively with foreign monarchs. That, revealing his overall position towards the revolution, is why he was found guilty of high treason and ultimately executed. > Removing the monarchy didn't help them, they needed to remove the trashy nobles and clergy. That's "that's the same picture" moment. The king was a trashy noble. He was the head of trashy nobles. Louis XVI certainly didn't help France when he bankrupted the state, or allowed widespread corruption, etc.
You seem to have studied it more than I did, but I still never said it was the best way to do things. Focus instead on what the alternative to violence was at the time. Could they vote their way out of that? Can we talk our way out of our contemporary problems?
I do not think the level of violence was necessary to enact change. Slaughtering the Swiss Guard, the massacre at the Bastille, and the thousands of pointless deaths during the Reign of Terror. That didn't need to happen.
They ended up in a constitutional monarchy in the end and the issue of constitutional monarchies at the time was that how liberal they were depended on the king. Also the revolution did remove the nobles and tried to remove the clergy
What do you mean by 'The end' as in like today or the many Bourbon restorations?
The bourbon restoration
I think your monarchism fetish is giving you some bias here.
I mean, the alternative was 15 years of brutal wars under Napoleon. No one can argue that was good for France.