Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[paulpablo]

Well it's just a simple disagreement.

You believe any protest is justifiable when a person risks their life for that protest.

I could never make such a blanket statement like that.

I think every protest or cause has to be judged on its own pros and cons rather than on how willing a person is to die for that cause.

[CapnAwesome]

I actually think the news media incentivizes violent protest. A non violent protest gets maybe an hour of news coverage. A riot gets 24 hour coverage with numerous experts asking what the people want and how to end the riot. Seems to be that violent protest is actually more effective.

[paulpablo]

I actually think the news media incentivizes violent protest. A non violent protest gets maybe an hour of news coverage. A riot gets 24 hour coverage with numerous experts asking what the people want and how to end the riot. Seems to be that violent protest is actually more effective.

But the coverage is often negative to the cause.
And the violence is usually directed at least partly towards people and property unrelated to the cause the protest is against.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm keeping up with what you just said.

That someone risking their life for change is always justifiable.

It's a really stupid thing to say.

I think you're missing the obvious point that he's making, which is that the suicide bomber has made the justification inside his own head.

It's really not that difficult to understand, unless you're really trying hard not to. Justification, like most any other human thought process, is subjective, not objective.

---

A statement made in regards to protesters, in a thread about protest, in response to comments from another poster that had been..back and forth the entire time between us, been swirling around protesters.  Are you done, now, or is there anything else you like to "not" compare protesters to, any other thing you'd like to "not" argue?

Hey, while we're on the subject of things that go completely over your head...are you aware of the difference between what is justifiable, and what you..personally, or the state... agrees or disagrees with?

---

At which point, regardless of the veracity of their beliefs, and by whose metrics that veracity is being judged..it's fair to say we have a problem that clearly needs to be resolved.  I suppose it;s easier to conceptualize as a black and white scenario when we can point to them as the other...foreign agitants, being such a popular example..as an example (terrorists from jihadi land, or people getting bussed in and paid by george soros).  

Little bit more pernicious when it's "us".

So a protest where someone risks their life is justifiable the moment someone risks their life for a that cause.
Justifiable being defined as reasonable, proven to be right, viable.
So protestors who attack abortion clinics, reasonable, justifiable. Let's say some of them kill a doctor or bomb the clinic and risk being shot by police or jailed for life.
Muslims who protest against and kill cartoonists and other forms of freedom of speech that's justifiable?
The risking of someone's life doesn't make the person risking their life correct.
That's just dopey.
It's fairly simple to comprehend.

You insist on behaving as if justification is objective.

If anything's "dopey" here, it's that sort of simple-minded reductio ad stultus.

[abaris]

I think you're missing the obvious point that he's making, which is that the suicide bomber has made the justification inside his own head.

It's really not that difficult to understand, unless you're really trying hard not to. Justification, like most any other human thought process, is subjective, not objective.

There's another point to consider. When is an insurgent a freedom fighter, something to support, and when are they terrorists. I've seen some posts on the IRA as of late. Bad terrorists obviously, according to the OP. The Resistance in France during German occupation, I think hardly anyone would call them terrorists. Yet what's the real difference. Both are or were fighting for independence against what they considered an occupying force.

By the way, we had the same kind of narrative with the Mujahedins in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Not one of our media called them terrorists. They all were galant fighters. Yet once the Soviets were gone and they were still the same, fighting against what they considered a threat - us - they instantly turned into terrorists.

[paulpablo]

I'm keeping up with what you just said.

That someone risking their life for change is always justifiable.

It's a really stupid thing to say.

I think you're missing the obvious point that he's making, which is that the suicide bomber has made the justification inside his own head.

It's really not that difficult to understand, unless you're really trying hard not to. Justification, like most any other human thought process, is subjective, not objective.

Of course.
But speaking practically it makes no sense in the context of that conversation to be talking about the justification going on inside someone's own head.
If that's the case every action is justified.

I could go into a Jewish community forum and say Hitler's actions were justifiable. Then do you think it would be weird if they were offended?

If they were offended then they must just be trying hard to not understand that I mean Hitler's actions were justified inside his own mind and not to myself.

Apart from involuntary ticks and primitive body movements like a heart beating or lungs breathing what examples are there of an unjustifiable action that someone takes where they do something that they've decided is wrong?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's another point to consider. When is an insurgent a freedom fighter, something to support, and when are they terrorists. I've seen some posts on the IRA as of late. Bad terrorists obviously, according to the OP. The Resistance in France during German occupation, I think hardly anyone would call them terrorists. Yet what's the real difference. Both are or were fighting for independence against what they considered an occupying force.

By the way, we had the same kind of narrative with the Mujahedins in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Not one of our media called them terrorists. They all were galant fighters. Yet once the Soviets were gone and they were still the same, fighting against what they considered a threat - us - they instantly turned into terrorists.

That's the wall Pablo's running up against, except he doesn't seem percipient enough to realize it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well it's just a simple disagreement.

You believe any protest is justifiable when a person risks their life for that protest.

I could never make such a blanket statement like that.

I think every protest or cause has to be judged on its own pros and cons rather than on how willing a person is to die for that cause.

Don't you think that the proponents willingness to die for a cause is one of the metrics by which the cause can be assessed, perhaps even the most consequential metric, in the present?

If a person tells you "We've got it rough" and their way of dealing with that is just telling you so.  Another persons tells you "we've got it rough" and they organize peaceful demonstrations and work hard within the orthodoxy to "fit in".  Then, yet another, says "we've got it rough"...and lobs a bomb at cops in riot gear....might that be demonstrative of something?

Do you think that there just -might- be a way to assess each individuals point in the curve of desperation and disenfranchisement?  What if all three people are the same group, over the course of 60 (or even 150...) years, each expressing the same fundamental grievance as the previous generation?

Disenfranchised communities in the united states have put up with more egregious and intentional shit, for a longer period of time, than the original colonists did before they declared all out war. I think it might be fair to assume that, for some people, any reasonable expectation of patience and peaceful tolerance to abuse has been exhausted. I consider violence a justifiable, even if disagreeable, response to such a long standing trend. Particularly when recent events and developments (not the least of which public opinion and reactions....or a lack thereof) show us to be moving -retrograde- against the snails pails of any actual progress made.

[paulpablo]

I'm keeping up with what you just said.

That someone risking their life for change is always justifiable.

It's a really stupid thing to say.

I think you're missing the obvious point that he's making, which is that the suicide bomber has made the justification inside his own head.

It's really not that difficult to understand, unless you're really trying hard not to. Justification, like most any other human thought process, is subjective, not objective.

---

So a protest where someone risks their life is justifiable the moment someone risks their life for a that cause.
Justifiable being defined as reasonable, proven to be right, viable.
So protestors who attack abortion clinics, reasonable, justifiable. Let's say some of them kill a doctor or bomb the clinic and risk being shot by police or jailed for life.
Muslims who protest against and kill cartoonists and other forms of freedom of speech that's justifiable?
The risking of someone's life doesn't make the person risking their life correct.
That's just dopey.
It's fairly simple to comprehend.

You insist on behaving as if justification is objective.

If anything's "dopey" here, it's that sort of simple-minded reductio ad stultus.

So now when someone says something is justified what they really mean is that someone somewhere thinks it's justified?

So if I started a thread on this forum when Dylan roof shot up that church saying Dylan roof shooting those black people was justified you would have just thought that justified is subjective and therefore Paul's thread is pretty much correct. Dylan roofs actions were justified..... to Dylan roof.
You wouldn't have argued against my point at all.

---

Well it's just a simple disagreement.

You believe any protest is justifiable when a person risks their life for that protest.

I could never make such a blanket statement like that.

I think every protest or cause has to be judged on its own pros and cons rather than on how willing a person is to die for that cause.

Don't you think that the proponents willingness to die for a cause is one of the metrics by which the cause can be assessed, perhaps even the most consequential metric, in the present?

If a person tells you "We've got it rough" and their way of dealing with that is just telling you so.  Another persons tells you "we've got it rough" and they organize peaceful demonstrations and work hard within the orthodoxy to "fit in".  Then, yet another, says "we've got it rough"...and lobs a bomb at cops in riot gear....might that be demonstrative of something?

Do you think that there just -might- be a way to assess each individuals point in the curve of desperation and disenfranchisement?  What if all three people are the same group, over the course of 60 years, each expressing the same fundamental grievance as the previous generation?

No I still don't think the merits of a cause can be assessed by how willing people are to die for the cause.

Because as we've already spoke about some people are simply mentally unhinged, brainwashed and so on.

Take for example the cult of rev jim jones or the the heavens gate cult who took their own lives for the cause of their cult leaders.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course.
But speaking practically it makes no sense in the context of that conversation to be talking about the justification going on inside someone's own head.
If that's the case every action is justified.

So what? All justification is subjective anyway. I know this is going to sound "dopey" to you, but "inside someone's head" is exactly where the justification happens. And even more shockingly, just because someone takes what they consider to be a justified action, you aren't compelled to agree with them! Can you imagine that?!

This subjectivity thing ... you've really got to check it out, little buddy. It's some crazy shit, dude.

---

So now when someone says something is justified what they really mean is that someone somewhere thinks it's justified?

You're being intentionally the dullard, aren't you?

When someone takes an action, ipso facto that actor has decided that they are justified. Not Moe Bandy from South Fork, Indiana, not Thumpalumpacus from Texas, but that specific actor.

So if I started a thread on this forum when Dylan roof shot up that church saying Dylan roof shooting those black people was justified you would have just thought that justified is subjective and therefore Paul's thread is pretty much correct. Dylan roofs actions were justified..... to Dylan roof.
You wouldn't have argued against my point at all.

That's because your comparisons and analogies aren't germane to the conversation, and generally speaking I avoid arguing with you because you have a dolt's insistence on refusing to see any point other than your own ... as you're amply demonstrating here.