• ed_cock@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Violence is supposed to be the last resort to deal with them, I don’t see how this is in any way helpful, good or justified.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The last resort according to basic self preservation.

          The other side have guns too. What do you think they’re gonna do when you start killing their people?

          • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.

            Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              One side is gonna lose in the end.

              And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.

              Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.

              Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.

              • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power.

                  Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a difference between not tolerating their shit and wishing people’s death.

      Edit: spelling