Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[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.