Talking doesn't work VIOLENCE..

As I said, I have no interest in going through the list on all pacifists out there. There is a chapter in that book titled Who Are the Pacifists, but it hasn't been released for free online yet. The chapter I quoted you had a mix of nonviolent protests matched up to movements using a diversity of tactics. The ones with the most success (or the only success) have been the ones using a diversity of tactics. Again all the rights we have to this day are thanks to that.

If you think the nonviolent movements mentioned were successful then somethings either wrong with your eyes or you support movements being co-opted by corrupt governments and corporations.

Yes I've been to dozens of nonviolent protests. They usually pop up for a day and then dissappear for a couple years as if nothing ever happened. The only reason you hear of ones using diverse tactics is because they make sure to make their presence known to their enemies. But as someone involved in various movements, I assure you that they're dominated by dogmatic pacifists. It's actually a big problem and one of the main things being worked on in the so-called left. So again, that wasn't an exhaustive list. Just the tip of the iceberg, enough to prove my point. If you want to counter it, go ahead.

 

Not tryin' to counter anything brother man. Just pointin' out that there is no evidence for the assertion that true peaceful protest doesn't work.

 

Yes, there's over 100,000 words worth. And multiple videos and audio books.

Your turn to prove that it does work.

 

Sitting quietly and letting people arrest you and asking nicely for rights isn't going to work.
The powers that be don't give up anything unless they're FORCED to. They're not gonna start changing things because we sat quietly and said Om.
"You only gave us rights because we gave you riots".

15:39 (I'm the blue haired chick)

 

Yep, violence is the only tried and true method of achieving change. And the outcome is always so predictably positive. There's no way anything could get out of hand. No way...

 

Thanks for proving to us the flawed category called "violence" and how it can mean a million different things.

Ironically the violence of military, which you describe, is one of the things we're debating in this thread on how to stop. As it stands the conclusion is that to stop the mass-murder shown in your photos, you can't just ask them to "please stop".

Or did i misread your post, and you actually think all "violence" is the same? That a woman who kills a rapist is the same as carpet-bombing a city. Or someone smashing the windows of a corporation using child and/or slave labor is the same and killing millions of people?

 

Well, if you're going to stop violence, you have to identify the root cause of it. In your opinion, what is the root cause of violent military actions?

 

So why do we have guns in this country. I mean if shit hits the fan are you going to talk?

Funny to me that the same people who love guns and "toxic" masculinity mock people who threaten to do more then talk. It's almost as if they think standing up is exclusive only to them which makes their life easy and stress free. When they do it's patriotic when others do they ask why are you stupid as to resort to that?

This is a world wide issue but OP's video is of Trump so I am reminded of the politics in America.

 

. . .

 

I don't think violence is right.

 

Who loves guns and toxic masculinity?

I can't wait to see you try to draw a parallel between protecting one's family from a midnight intruder, and a military action against another country.

 

Well technically that would be determined by the time in history and the war. But in general, it would be those who control military. Empire. Or even just government.

 

That was an exceptionally well-articulated indictment of Western powers. I just don't see how violence is going to put a stop to it.

 

American men do. Look at the Gillette ad for example.

You don't have to kill someone to protect yourself. If you broke into my home I could have a gun taken from your hands and your arms broken quickly. The dark is my ally as is me knowing the floor plan. It's ethics.

 

You cannot really stop violence, it's not something we really have any control of even as people now that the violent, selfish and greed genes have been found in our DNA. These are traits or faults, I suppose, that are pre determined in our genetic make up.

 

Well, I guess you can use razor commercials to prove your point. I mean, there's no law against it.

As far as your belief that you could take a gun from my hands and break both of my arms before I could kill you, sure you could. Sure you could. That's the way it works in your mind as well as in the movies.

And anyone whose lack of ethics leads them to enter my home in the middle of the night has forfeited their rights to ethical treatment. If they don't understand what their criminal presence in my home means to me, I'm under no obligation to make adjustments to compensate for their ignorance on the matter. In that moment, their safety and security is not even on my priority list.

 

I'm not saying I could get you from across the room. Fire arms have clear advantages. But I would rather someone take a few things and leave and not kill them. I have security measures. If you came far enough in the house I certainly could get you. Most gun owners are the type to confront in the living room fine with shooting as you said since you owe them nothing.

He might have a gun too. He might be as accurate as you. You think he does not know people have guns? Stealth overcomes this. Life is not worth a TV.I just don't view human life like that no matter another human who wrongs me. Of course I would protect myself. There are other ways. Many burglars run at noise alone. The ideal situation is an empty house. Their fear is enough.

 

Well yeah, that's why I advocate asking the midnight intruder exactly what his intentions are, because if there's one thing midnight home invaders are notorious for, it's telling the truth when asked during their illegal invasion of your family's private space.

 

Well I'm not arguing for violence, but what's called a diversity of tactics. But to be slightly more precise, many dogmatic pacifists think anything the State finds threatening in any way is "violent" just because it's sometimes illegal. Such as most direct action: