When is violence acceptable?

[loosecannon]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

When in political is violence acceptable?

I'm certain we're dealing with an oxymoron here: When Violence begins, Politics ends.

They are mutually exclusive.

is this true or just wishful thinking? Or is it absolutely 100% wrong? Isn't it more true that politics is joined at the hip to violence and always has been?

Definitions of politics on the Web:

* social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power; "office politics is often counterproductive"
* the study of government of states and other political units
* the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs
* the opinion you hold with respect to political questions
* the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government; "unemployment dominated the politics of the inter-war years"; "government agencies multiplied beyond the control of representative politics"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[thereisnospoon]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

THe last time it was acceptable was the Civil War.
The southern states people felt steamrolled by the central government which they felt was heavily influenced by the more wealthy northern states.
The south became a Confederacy and the states electing to stay with the USA, decided violence was the best way to keep the country from tearing apart. South lost and the result we have 50 states.

 

[goldcatt]

What/who are state actors?

I think he's talking about law enforcement. But who knows? These black helicopter types get a little obscure sometimes.

Care to explain, loosecannon?

(A)
Albania (Tirane) - in Albanian only
Algeria (Algers)
Andorra (Andorra la Vella)
Angola (Luanda)
Anguilla (St. Martin)
Antigua and Barbuda (St. John's)
Argentina (Buenos Aires)
Armenia (Yerevan)
Australia (Canberra)
Austria (Vienna)
Azerbaijan (Baku)

(B)
Bahamas (Nassau)
Bahrain (Manama)
Bangladesh (Dhaka)
Barbados (Bridgetown)
Belarus (Minsk)
Belgium (Brussels)
Belize (Belmopan)
Benin (Port-Novo) - In French only
Bhutan (Thimphu)
Bolivia (Sucre)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo)
Botswana (Gaborone)
Brazil (Brasilia)
Brunei (Bander Seri Begawan)
Bulgaria (Sofia)
Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou) - In French only
Burma/Myanmar (Yangon)
Burundi (Bujumbura)

(C)
Cambodia (Phnom Penh)
Cameroon (Yaounde)
Canada (Ottawa)
Cape Verde (Praia) - In Portuguese only
Central African Republic (Bangui) - In French only
Chad (N'Djamena)
Chile (Santiago)
China (Beijing)
Colombia (Bogota)
Comoros (Moroni)
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Republic of (Kinshasa)
Costa Rica (San Jose)
Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast (Yamoussoukro) - general link
Croatia (Zagreb)
Cuba (Havana)
Cyprus (Nicosia) (Greek)
Cyprus (Nicosia) (Turkish)
Czech Republic (Prague)

(D)
Denmark (Copenhagen)
Djibouti (Djibouti)
Dominica (Roseau)
Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo)

(E)
Ecuador (Quito) - links to government sites
Egypt (Cairo)
El Salvador (San Salvador)
Equatorial Guinea (Malabo)
Eritrea (Asmara)
Estonia (Tallinn)
Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

(F)
Fiji (Suva)
Finland (Helsinki)
France (Paris)

(G)
Gabon (Liberville)
Gambia (Banjul)
Georgia (Tbilisi)
Germany (Berlin)
Ghana (Accra)
Greece (Athens)
Greenland (Godthab)
Grenada (St. George's)
Guatemala (Guatemala City)
Guinea (Conakry)
Guinea-Bissau (Bissau)
Guyana (Georgetown)

(H)
Haiti (Port-au-Prince)
Honduras (Tegucigalpa)
Hungary (Budapest)

(I)
Iceland (Reykjavik)
India (New Delhi)
Indonesia (Jakarta)
Iran (Tehran)
Iraq (Baghdad)
Ireland (Dublin)
Israel (Jerusalem)
Italy (Rome)

(J)
Jamaica (Kingston)
Japan (Tokyo)
Jordan (Amman)

(K)
Kazakstan (Almaty)
Kenya (Nairobi)
Kiribati (Bairiki)
Korea, North (Pyongyang)
Korea, South (Seoul)
Kuwait (Kuwait City)
Kyrgyzstan (Bishkek)

(L)
Laos (Vientiane) - U.S.A. Embassy
Latvia (Riga)
Lebanon (Beirut)
Lesotho (Maseru)
Liberia (Monrovia)
Libya (Tripoli)
Liechtenstein (Vaduz) - in German only
Lithuania (Vilnius)
Luxembourg (Luxembourg)
(M)
Macedonia (Skopje)
Madagascar (Antananarivo)
Malawi (Lilongwe)
Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)
Maldives (Male)
Mali (Bamako) - embassy in Washington
Malta (Valletta)
Marshall Islands (Majuro)
Mauritania (Nouakchott)
Mauritius (Port Louis)
Mexico (Mexico City)
Micronesia (Palikir)
Moldova (Chisinau)
Monaco (Monaco)
Mongolia (Ulan Bator)
Morocco (Rabat)
Mozambique (Maputo)

(N)
Namibia (Windhoek)
Nepal (Kathmandu)
Netherlands (The Hague)
New Zealand (Wellington)
Nicaragua (Managua)
Niger (Niamey)
Nigeria (Abuja)
Norway (Oslo)

(O)
Oman (Muscat)

(P)
Pakistan (Islamabad)
Palau (Koror)
Palestine (Jerusalem)
Panama (Panama City)
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby)
Paraguay (Asuncion)
Peru (Lima)
Philippines (Manila)
Poland (Warsaw)
Portugal (Lisbon)
Puerto Rico (San Juan)

(Q)
Qatar (Doha)

(R)
Romania (Bucharest)
Russian Federation (Moscow)
Rwanda (Kigali)

(S)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (Basseterre)
Saint Lucia (Castries)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Kingstown)
San Marino (San Marino)
Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome)
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh)
Senegal (Dakar)
Seychelles (Victoria)
Sierra Leone (Freetown)
Singapore (Singapore City)
Slovakia (Bratislava) - in Slovak only
Slovenia (Ljubljana)
Solomon Islands (Honiara)
Somalia (Mogadishu)
South Africa (Pretoria)
Spain (Madrid) - in Spanish only
Sri Lanka (Colombo)
Sudan (Khartoum)
Suriname (Paramaribo)
Swaziland (Mbabane)
Sweden (Stockholm)
Switzerland (Bern)
Syria (Damascus)

(T)
Taiwan (Taipei)
Tajikistan (Dushanbe) - general information
Tanzania (Dodoma)
Thailand (Bangkok)
Togo (Lome)
Tonga (Nuku'alofa)
Trinidad and Tobago (Port-of-Spain)
Tunisia (Tunis)
Turkey (Ankara) - in Turkish only
Turkmenistan (Ashgabat)
Tuvalu (Funafuti)

(U)
Uganda (Kampala)
Ukraine (Kiev)
United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi)
United Kingdom (London)
United States of America (Washington D.C.)
Uruguay (Montevideo)
Uzbekistan (Tashkent)

(V)
Vanuatu (Port-Vila)
Vatican City
Venezuela (Caracas)
Vietnam (Hanoi) - In Vietnamese only

(W)
Western Samoa (Apia)

(Y)
Yemen (Sana)
Yugoslavia (Belgrade)

(Z)
Zambia (Lusaka)
Zimbabwe (Harare)

We know what a State is, now go back and read the question again.....slowly this time. Look up any big words you don't understand and then try again, 'k?

I'll reword it for you, even. WTF are you babbling about?

 

[thereisnospoon]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

If that happens, which it won't, I'd advocate refusing to comply/hiding your weapons and getting a lawyer. I'd definitely NOT advocate opening fire on the police. That's pretty much never an option, and once you go down that path you end up dead.

So in the case of unjust action by the government, poice have been given power to eneter private homes without notice and without a warrant, you'd meekly acquiese to their demands?....
What would be your hope, that the government would leave you alone?...Sure. Once government breaks the laws of the land, we have no choice but to defend ourselves. With deadly force if necessary.
Better to be judges by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[JBeukema]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

The sovereign.

Sovereign citizens ? the new counter culture - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

 

[goldcatt]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

The sovereign.

Sovereign citizens ? the new counter culture - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

Never could understand those folks.

 

[loosecannon]

I think he's talking about law enforcement. But who knows? These black helicopter types get a little obscure sometimes.

Care to explain, loosecannon?

(A)
Albania (Tirane) - in Albanian only
Algeria (Algers)
Andorra (Andorra la Vella)
Angola (Luanda)
Anguilla (St. Martin)
Antigua and Barbuda (St. John's)
Argentina (Buenos Aires)
Armenia (Yerevan)
Australia (Canberra)
Austria (Vienna)
Azerbaijan (Baku)


(Y)
Yemen (Sana)
Yugoslavia (Belgrade)

(Z)
Zambia (Lusaka)
Zimbabwe (Harare)

We know what a State is, now go back and read the question again.....slowly this time. Look up any big words you don't understand and then try again, 'k?

I'll reword it for you, even. WTF are you babbling about?

YOU routinely support violence perpetrated by state actors all over the world. Day in and day out your support for these state actors engaging in violence is sustained, yet you claim not to be able to support violence unless it is in the name of defense.

All that was blatantly obvious if you had half a clue and actually bothered to think.

State actors are anybody who formally or informally acts as an agent of the state. Police, military, intelligence, special operatives, ambassadors, even Mafiosas we hired to kill Castro.

I chose the term "state actors" because it is the broadest possible category of state agents.

Nations states, ourselves, our allies, our enemies, all rely on state violence and threats of violence 100% of the time to enforce their authority.

Violence is the currency of states. And you support all of this 100% of the time while pretending otherwise.

 

[jimbetty123]

I believe violence can be acceptable, but only if it involves the entertainment of myself or those close to me. It is a hobby of mine to 'brick' the shit out of 'innocent' bystanders and my local community has never had a problem with it. And if they did have a problem with it then I'd probably have to brick them too.

 

[frazzledgear]

I don't hear ANYONE with any ability to launch a violent revolution calling for one on either side. But when it is acceptable?

I'm happy someone can cut and paste from their NRA blog.

That kind of response works for you, huh? Maybe someone should have told you that trying to dismiss someone's entire argument out of hand with a silly brush off comment just because you lack the ability to engage in rational debate -will never substitute for that rational debate and is just the response of a child. Right up there with "I know you are but what I am" kind of shit. Since I see that kind of immature response routinely from liberals all the time, every time I do see it, it only confirms several of my conclusions about liberals -from realizing liberals have a stunted emotional development that has left them fearful and resistant to assuming the responsibilities of adulthood to being handicapped with reading comprehension deficits and a lack of critical thinking skills. It is why they so often just respond like children instead of being able to respond like a grown up. Aside from confirming the lack of critical thinking skills, it also shows there is no understanding of cause-and-effect and that the left incredulously chooses to value the superficial over substance. They would support ANY shit piece of legislation as long as some Democrat put a nice warm-and-fuzzy title on it and even if it caused misery to millions. Because hey, they were motivated by such "pure and noble" things THAT is all that really counts -not the misery they caused.

Trying to help you here by using the shortest words possible -all that means your response only confirmed my already very low opinion of liberals. I don't have any respect for people willing to inflict policies on others because they think their motives alone are all that is needed to do good especially since history has repeatedly PROVEN how that so often results in creating a hell on earth for millions. I don't give a flying fuck about the motives of a liberal - what results from it matters FAR more to me than any of their squeals about how "pure and noble" their motives are. That is because I'm a normal adult with critical thinking skills, comprehend cause-and-effect and posses more than adequate reading comprehension skills. And you don't.

Your response is not the response of a normal, mature adult. But you do it because you can't win the debate. And everyone else knows it except maybe another mental midget liberal. Remember that every time you are stupid enough to tell yourself that a meaningless glib brush off means you won an argument. ROFL

Like it or not, I'm not wrong about the left being far more violent than the right. History has repeatedly proven it to be true. A reality you probably don't want to face is the fact that every form of totalitarianism is LEFTWING. Anarchy is rightwing extremism and let's not pretend Iran has an anarchy going there, ok? Not much in common there with conservatives at all but there is more in common with leftists who can identify with a government that has that kind of power. They just want to be those with the power instead of the Islamists. That is just an internal dispute -not what determines whether a group is leftwing or rightwing though. Only a liberal moron would fall for that piece of idiocy. And did!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

When discourse has no chance of success. When the Government no longer responds to the people and their supposed control of said Government. When corruption is so bad that one side illegally steals elections and no vote will ever matter under the circumstances.

Have we reached any of those points? Not yet, but it is close. We have runaway activist Judges nullifying the will of the people in State after State and up until this election we had the real specter of one party cheating to deny a fair election.

Our Government is going broke. If someone does not rein in the spending in 10 to 20 years we will be in the crapper. No money, no means to borrow more and a debt we can not repay. That will lead to the break down of all levels of our Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Agreed.

The Constitutional Convention option has never once been utilized, and we still have free elections along with mechanisms for recall for may elected offices. In general, violence should always be the option of last resort, and thankfully the Constitution provides for enough options that violence should never need be resorted to.

I'd also add, that even if YOU feel violence is justified, once you resort to violence you need to accept that there will be consequences to that, even if you do win. Which you probably won't. Once Violence is used as a means to an end, it makes violence and acceptable option whenever someone has a disagreement with you. A cycle of violence, once started, is almost impossible to stop.

Specifically, if you feel that things have deteriorated to the point that you think violence is justified against police or law enforcement, don't expect me to stand up for you when they outright kill your ass, if you'll pardon my French. Once you open fire on the police, you're pretty much dead and the argument is moot.

And yet we were born in Revolution AGAINST the Government and the Police. I suggest you are to blind to see that at some point violence not only becomes acceptable it is in fact the only means left. We have not reached that stage but we keep edging toward it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

If you do not know, none of us can explain it to you, it is a basic concept.

 

[mdn2000]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

I see your premise as wrong. Who are the "some on the right", calling for violent revolution.

 

[bucs90]

If anything, I think it shows how extreme the rhetoric is getting. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain why your political opponent may be wrong. It is now necessary to demonize him, ridicule him and question his or her patriotism.
Once you have labeled your opposition as evil incarnate it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue. How can you ever make deals with someone you have publically labeled the devil?

It seems violence has historically occurred when one of the two have happened:

1- The ruling minority wants to take vengence on the population it rules.

2 -The social minority realizes it is not winning over the majority, and feels it's ideals are too important to be peacefully ignored.

We probably won't ever experience #1, because our political system has elections, and because for our government to ever become violent against our citizens in mass, our soldiers and cops would have to participate, and we have noble men in both the military and law enforcment who would never follow those orders. Thank God.

But #2? We saw in the 60's the violent left, such as Obama's buddy Bill Ayers, who bombed police departments and the pentagon. And on the right, with Tim McVeigh.

And right now, I feel like we have an ultra-left minority that is fanatical about social progressive ideals and they are not accepting that the American people will not allow that type ideology to rule our country. The ultra left is in a panic over that. How they'll react remains to be seen.

But thats the only time I see violence out of a mass of people.

We'll always have the individual morons from all walks of ideology that do solo acts of violence, but mass violence I only see being possible from those 2 scenarios.

 

[bucs90]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

I see your premise as wrong. Who are the "some on the right", calling for violent revolution.

I can't seem to find any on the right calling for it.

On the left? Well we saw the call to "kill cracka babies". We've seen the environmental whackos bombing shit all the time, with that group (ELF) being the #1 cause of domestic terror in the USA according to FBI stats (it's true, look it up). We've seen Obama's admin proposing "SWAT teams" enter your home to force installation of eco-friendly windows, and SWAT teams carry guns for a reason. We've seen the left propose rounding up all the guns owned by US citizens, and that of course wouldn't be peaceful. We saw a National Socialist Party of Germany (Socialist = left, as we saw the MSNBC host admit to being a socialist this week) that rounded up millions of Jews for execution. We've seen left wing, socialist/communist governments in Russia, USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, commit mass murder in the name of communism, socialism, etc. Pol Pot, Che, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Mao (who Obama had a xmas ornament of on his white house tree). All the same, violent mass murders of the non-followers.

So let that be the viewpoint I have on where violence comes from.

 

[editec]

I'm a believer in the POPEYE school of violence

When:

"That's alls I can stand, cause I can't stands no more"​

violence is an acceptable option.​

But take my advice: don't be the first guy to the revolution.​

Early revolutionary adapters tend not to do well.​

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And yet we were born in Revolution AGAINST the Government and the Police. I suggest you are to blind to see that at some point violence not only becomes acceptable it is in fact the only means left. We have not reached that stage but we keep edging toward it.

Re-read the Declaration. Violence became the tool of the Founders once they'd exhausted all other recourse.

Here in the States, we have a great many recourses that have yet to even be tried. There may well come a day that violence is the only option left before the curtain comes down on us as a nation. But I can't advocate that until the peaceful options left on the table have been exhausted.

I'd add that once that day comes, the folks who adapt violence as their tool for change need to understand that justitifed or not, violence will beget violence. When you decide the time has come to take up arms, don't cry when they take up arms against you. That's the high cost of violence. Before you make the decision, be sure you're willing to pay the price.

 

[MarcATL]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

If that happens, which it won't, I'd advocate refusing to comply/hiding your weapons and getting a lawyer. I'd definitely NOT advocate opening fire on the police. That's pretty much never an option, and once you go down that path you end up dead.

The fact that you have to explain that to the person you're attempting to engage with shows their level of intelligence, or lack thereof more specifically.

 

[MarcATL]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

This is another Far Right Wing RepubliCON$ MYTH.

WHO on the left is calling for violence? Name specifically.

You don't see ANY politician on the left calling for or advocating violence?

People on the left have NOT come to rallies with guns at their hips and what's not.

Cut your shit.

 

[JBeukema]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

If you do not know, none of us can explain it to you, it is a basic concept.

Nice dodge