Why are people so against violence especially political violence? it is almost as if violence is perceived to be worse than racism especially by right wingers
>ViOlEnCe NeVeR SoLvEs AnYtHiNg go and ask every defeated army in history and every disgusting political ideology beat down in history especially the democratic and communist movements in Germany, everyone knows deep down a good hiding is better and quicker than a debate
>B-but its bad optics!! everyone hates you and your ideology already, its common knowledge that violent movements are also popular movements, see Nazis in germany and communists in soviet union
>i-its illegal!! so fucking what stop being a bitch, violence is natural and righteous against your enemy
Violence is nature itself, it is the force of nature, weak-willed cucks who are not willing to use violence will one day perish against those who relish in violence, unleash your inner barbarian, white man.
checked Sure (((everybody))) is against violence. Imagine everybody using violence, that would be an uncontrolable shitshow.
Camden Morris
Fuck off
Bentley Thomas
its all rational and logical until its you who is the victim
Daniel Anderson
Those on top are the ones who are ready to commit violence at a moments notice, those are the same people who tell us that violence is wrong, it is used as a means to control people, being violent is the very first step to break the chains and one day they will be the ones on top as has been seen throughout all of history
Samuel Gutierrez
Because its blind violence. No antifag or edgy nazi boy is attacking the politicians they oppose, they are attack citizens who approve of said politician. Which is retarded if you want to act and pretend that you're fighting for the people w huh ile also literally fighting the people. Go attack a politician to do something and make an impact. Punching some guy who works a 9 to 5 with 2 kids does absolutely nothing for anyone
Charles Cruz
the purpose of using violence against average people who support a politician is to incite fear into that persons supporters it has worked for thousands of years but i also agree that attacking the politicians are a better target
Tyler Howard
do ethics even play a part or its really just will to power?
Carson Martin
i dont believe in morals or ethics towards our enemies, it holds us back way too much
Benjamin Perez
non-concern with ethics also weakens. i'm sure you are aware of numerous movements namely in the sixties in which protesters or similar types try to provoke authority to use violence on them and then use those images to change the public opinion
Owen Ward
>being violent is the very first step to break the chains No. The first step is to realize that violence is just another effective and sometimes efficient way to advance ones interests, depending on different external factors. It is normalizing violence.
This is actually what the left understands but not the right, but by understanding and applying it, the left forces the right to become violent. The current goal seems to be to provoke the right to act preemptive, which is bound to fail, as the left has to act harder to trigger the right and will by this fall in the public opinion clearing the path for a repetition of the 1930's.
What the right could do regarding violence, to trigger the left, would be intelligent terror by executing key players in the lefts ranks, provoking the usual screech marches to have the left clash more with (((the current))) violence monopoly holder, destabilizing both camps.
Owen Peterson
How are you posting this from prison?
Evan Foster
because weapons are so powerful nowadays, violence is not a realistic solution anymore
Jordan Price
Nice numbers.People are not against violence.Forcing you to pay taxes is violence for example.
The truth is violence by the people in power is accepted and in fact not considered violence at all. It's the unsanctionet violence that gets bad press,guess why?
Tyler Turner
>Thinking in 19th century warfare terms You are an idiot. A well placed and timed punch with a hammer on a specific head can cripple organizations on which hundred thousands of people depend on. No need for heavy artillery and massive armies clashing on some fields
Jose Kelly
Nicetrips of truth also grew up in the 80s the lack of violence is what is whats wrong with everything violence is the ultimate redpill
John Jenkins
To paraphrase Heinlein yes, naked force has probably solved more than anything else in history.
The ability to use violence when necessary is the mark of a man of conviction, but should be used sparingly. There's the old adage of course about reliance: you have to make sure all your problems don't end up looking like nails, but more importantly if your violence is being used to establish order and civility afterwards, it has to be made justifiable. If violence is your first resort, posterity will hold your society in the shadow of your actions and wonder if force was all you've ever had because your ideas won't stand up on their own. But anyone who tells you violence is never the answer is trying to disarm you.
There is a time and place for violence, but our society wouldn't have got to this stage without violence or at the very least the threat of violence. It's the threat of violence that makes people obey the law; without the threat of your liberty being taken away, usually by violence, the rule of law would mean nothing.
Violence isn't the answer to all problems, but it is the only answer to some.
Alexander Butler
If you are so confedint that violence is the solution, why dont you do it?
Jason Bennett
>it is almost as if violence is perceived to be worse than racism especially by right wingers Wrong, racism is worse than violence, have you not been paying attention to punch a "Nazi"?
