I'm not insulting you in that first comment.

I'm pointing out both times you're throwing out insults, claiming I'm a dullard and you're saying obviously if someone makes an action then they consider that action justified by the fact they're taking that action.

Next part is you saying you have to be on drugs to think that people do actions they think aren't justified so it's not obvious if someone does an action that they do think it's justified.

You're taking the moral high ground acting like the wise old man who knows better but you're the one who came in throwing out insults while contradicting yourself.

I can play whatever game you play, if you want to talk about something and discuss it I can, if you want to resort to insults I'll do that after you insult me.

As for the discussion beyond insults what else is there to discuss?

Someone willing to die for a cause doesn't necessarily equal that cause having more merit or being justified (justified in my mind, to me, I have to make that clear obviously)


I don't think black people are a cult, what else is there to cover?

(February 15, 2017 at 10:42 am)paulpablo Wrote: I'm not insulting you in that first comment.

I'm pointing out both times you're throwing out insults, claiming I'm a dullard and you're saying obviously if someone makes an action then they consider that action justified by the fact they're taking that action.

Next part is you saying you have to be on drugs to think that people don't do actions they think aren't justified so it's not obvious if someone does an action that they do think it's justified.

You had to have it explained to you how many times, Paul? Of course folks get frustrated, and I'm no goddamned different.

(February 15, 2017 at 10:42 am)paulpablo Wrote: You're taking the moral high ground acting like the wise old man who knows better but you're the one who came in throwing out insults while contradicting yourself.

Not at all, I'm not making a single moral claim here. I'd recommend reviewing what has been written, this time with an eye to comprehending what I'm assuming is your native tongue.

(February 15, 2017 at 10:42 am)paulpablo Wrote: Someone willing to die for a cause doesn't necessarily equal that cause having more merit or being justified (justified in my mind, to me, I have to make that clear obviously)

Well, it's a good thing no one said that, now isn't it?

(February 15, 2017 at 10:42 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't think black people are a cult, what else is there to cover?

I'm not sure why you're directing this at me at all. Perhaps you're a little more confused than you realize? The "black block" comments were made entirely by others.

This is exactly why you're tiresome in conversation. Rather than actually pay attention, you bleat your own screed, don't read what is being written, read things that aren't written, and misattribute sentiments. Of course I'm going to suspect, after all this, that you're perhaps on something that has impaired your thinking. The alternative is to assume that you're naturally this stupid, and I'd rather not do you that disservice.

(February 13, 2017 at 7:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've long been an advocate of nonviolent protest. It seems to me to be very effective, and I see lots of downsides to using violent means, not least of which that it seems to generate free publicity for whoever the people resorting to violence are against.

But what I'm hearing when I try to promote that kind of protest/resistance against oppression is that it's my white cis-male privilege speaking. I'm not the designated target, not obviously in an endangered group, so it's easy for me to say 'stay disciplined, don't let yourself be provoked to violence, it only serves your enemies.'

I suppose it IS easy for me to say and that I don't face the same kind of danger and don't have the same anger and fear. I acknowledge that. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. But something else might.

Should I revisit my stance on nonviolence? Is it passé in the current situation? I don't think the people advocating violence are making much sense, does anyone else get it? I'm not asking if violence is justified, if someone is screaming in your face about what they're going to do to people like you once the law is on their side, punching them in the face may not be legal or strategic, but I'm not going to tell you they didn't deserve it or you don't deserve to do it. But I think opposing them in other ways is smarter and that hitting them is counter-productive to your aims. Am I wrong?

I really appreciate this thread.  As a student of conflict resolution and peacemaking, I have often asked myself similar questions. As a result, the only real understanding that I have reached is that the means by which humanity brings about change are everything: if it is done via destructive and violent means, then that destructive behavior will likely renew itself when encountering adversity and difference in the future; whereas, if it is done via constructive and peaceable means, then people are likely to resort to those same means when a conflict or difference of opinion occurs in the future.  

With that said, reading your op reminded me of Richard B. Gregg’s The power of non-violence, which was originally published in 1934. Posted below are some excerpts from Gregg’s book, which IMO, are relevant to your thread.  In addition, some members may also find them interesting.  With that said, thanks again for this thread.  Live long and prosper. 
 
“Violence is based upon fear and anger and uses them to the utmost.  We have seen that these two emotions are based on the idea of separation, of division.  Non-violent resistance, on the other hand, is based upon the idea of unity.  The hypothesis of non-violent resisters is that the strongest factor in human beings, in the long run, is their unity;—that they have more as a family in common than as separate individuals.  This unity is biological, psychological, moral, and, for those who believe in spirit, spiritual.  The basic assumption of these creative men of peace is that their opponents, no matter how forbidding externally, or no matter what their past history, are at bottom decent and have in their hearts at least a spark of good spirit which can eventually be aroused and strengthened into action.” (Gregg, 2007, p.65)

“Non-violent resistance is not lawless nor anarchical.  Anarchy is absence of government.  But the theory of non-violent resistance is not hostile to government as such.  It does oppose evils in government, but so would any fine and honest citizen.  Otherwise how could there ever be any hope of decent government?  Not only does non-violent resistance accept government; but in order to be successful it must also itself impose on its followers rigid discipline, self-control, strong cooperation and a sense of responsibility.
 
For the same reason true non-violent resistance is not disorderly.  The qualities it requires for its exercise are not qualities of disorder.  It asks for not less order but more, but it asks that the order be more just, more equitable, both in operation and in purpose and result, than many of the kinds of order that now prevail.  It aims to see that the prevailing order shall be truly democratic, just and fair to all groups, to minorities as well as majorities.”  (Gregg, 2007, p.146)
 
 
References
 
Gregg, Richard B. (2007).  The power of non-violence.  USA: Pierides press

As I keep pointing out the usual comprehension of expressions that use like "reasonable" or "understandable" or "justifiable"

Are usually talking about a persons own opinion.
my objection with you accusing me of being on drugs is that you accused me of being on drugs for making a point which you agreed with me on just a few paragraphs beforehand.

You said obviously people who do a certain action find that action justifiable by the nature that they're doing that action followed by calling me a dullard.

Then said I must be on drugs to think that people who do a certain action must feel justified in doing that action by the nature that they're doing that action.

That's the objection with that specific drugs comment.

Incapable of discussing the topic at hand, objecting to word usage in a vacuum...chiefly concerned over the issue of people calling you dense, unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility that a desperate response can be justified.

-and yet we wonder why people riot?

@Kernel

Welcome to the show.

Good excerpt, I think that Gregg expresses a simplistic view of violence, but his appraisal of non-violent resistence is spot on. I'd go further to say that non-violent resistence positively -relies- on some expectation of order and civility, of protection by the state or by members of the majority. Which is why, in this case, it could be considered a white privilege. In the absence of a bare minimum expectation, the beatings commence - and it;s difficult to peacefully resist when you're dead. Particularly difficult for a minority community that does not have the bodies to spare, and cannot realistically absorb the loss of it's leaders. Obviously many protesters and rioters feel that there is no longer any such reasonable expectation.

(February 15, 2017 at 12:58 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Incapable of discussing the topic at hand, objecting to word usage in a vacuum...chiefly concerned over the issue of people calling you dense, unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility that a desperate response can be justified.

-and yet we wonder why people riot?

@Kernel

Welcome to the show.

Good excerpt, I think that Gregg expresses a simplistic view of violence, but his appraisal of non-violent resistence is spot on. I'd go further to say that non-violent resistence positively -relies- on some expectation of order and civility, of protection by the state or by members of the majority. Which is why, in this case, it could be considered a white privilege. In the absence of a bare minimum expectation, the beatings commence - and it;s difficult to peacefully resist when you're dead. Particularly difficult for a minority community that does not have the bodies to spare, and cannot realistically absorb the loss of it's leaders. Obviously many protesters and rioters feel that there is no longer any such reasonable expectation.

Like atheist said, you're losing it.

I didn't say I refuse to accept a desperate response can be justified.

And I'm concerned with people jumping in calling me dense while making contradictions.

You chose not to comment on any question or issue repeatedly asked of you directly and specifically in that regard, though you did offer up the nugget that blacks weren't, in your opinion, a cult.   

It's good to see that your concerns are prioritized?

Look, man, you could...at any time, join the conversation.

(February 15, 2017 at 2:30 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You chose not to comment on any question or issue repeatedly asked of you directly and specifically in that regard, though you did offer up the nugget that blacks weren't, in your opinion, a cult.   

It's good to see that your concerns are prioritized?

Look, man, you could...at any time, join the conversation.

That's where your logic fails.
Abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscense in this case.
Apparently that's an appeal to ignorance.
I haven't answered all your questions because you babble a lot.
Besides it's justified for cops to beat up blacks people.

All this talk of protest and violence/nonviolence has me pining for the heady days of self immolation. 

(February 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote: my objection with you accusing me of being on drugs is that you accused me of being on drugs for making a point which you agreed with me on just a few paragraphs beforehand.

I asked, in a sarcastic manner. If you took it seriously, I'd advise you to stay away from the Internet.

(February 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You said obviously people who do a certain action find that action justifiable by the nature that they're doing that action followed by calling me a dullard.

Yes, because both points are obvious.

(February 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Then said I must be on drugs to think that people who do a certain action must feel justified in doing that action by the nature that they're doing that action.

That's the objection with that specific drugs comment.

My apologies. I had credited you with wit enough to detect sarcasm.

I can see now that that was a mistake on my part.

---

(February 15, 2017 at 2:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote: And I'm concerned with people jumping in calling me dense while making contradictions.

When you need something explained to you several times over, you're being dense. If you don't fucking like it, read for comprehension. It's not that hard and I'm told England too has public schooling.

---

(February 15, 2017 at 6:39 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: All this talk of protest and violence/nonviolence has me pining for the heady days of self immolation. 

---

---

Build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for a night.

Set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.