It is NOT okay to punch Jerry Seinfeld's Soup Nazi.
Not even if he denies you a meal and makes you sit out on the front steps with krellin.

#BanMajorMitchell

So what about the American Revolution?

Nonviolence has a philosophical foundation going back around three thousand years and has some spectacular victories over oppression to its name, such as overturning colonialism in India, ending Apartheid, and undoing Jim Crow.

As tempting as violence against evil fuckers is, it is the wrong approach for three reasons
1) the reason why the aforementioned evil fuckers are to be desipised is because of their hate and their violence. One cannot succeed in arguing against hate and violence by indulging in hate and violence. Two quite that sum up this position:

Obama quoting Mandela "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."

You are never going to teach people to love by bashing them over the head. Period

And Buddha: "Na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ
Averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano."

Or for those of you who don't speak Pali. "Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law."


In other words, if you seek to bring a close to hate, hate isn't going to work. Only love will

@kasko8: What?

@Ogion: I strongly agree. This is idea is also repeated in the Bible, such as, Matthew 5:44: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" KJV.

2) hate and violence are deeply corrosive to the hater. The experience and emotional impact of hating causes suffering and leaves one ill equipped to use the advocacy tools that will work to bring about change. If we succumb to anger we aren't clear headed and start to react rather than act. It ends up adding additional hurt to the victims. First the original hate and violence is harmful, and then following it up with a second wound of hating also harms. It's bad enough Nazis hurt us. Don't help them by giving in to hate. Again, Buddha. "Anger is like throwing hot coals at someone with your bare hands"

Alternatively, Gandhi. "You must be the change you wish to see in the world". If you want a peaceful world, being peaceful is the only way you'll have the quality of character to do it.

Yes, Jeus was a big proponent of noviolence also, which is where I had my first training in it. It is no surprise at all that the Christian reverend King felt resonance with the Hindu and Buddhist teaching that were the foundation for Gandhi's satyagraha

@ksako8

the American Revolution actually came form the British marching on Concrod trying to seize armaments from the US militias.

the Declaration of Independence was just saying they were separating, once the British sent soldiers to Concord, that was a declaration of war.

and if any Nazis try to steal your guns, then they are impeaching upon your rights and you should be allowed to defend yourself accordingly. That's a simply legal fact

3) violence is horrible politics. As an advocacy tool, it robs the argument of moral force. Take a look at how much damage the Black Bloc has done to the anti-supremacist cause by attacking the neonazis. They allow the argument "both sides do it" take on vitality and allow it to obscure the deeper message that the must be rejected. It vindicates the Nazis. As political messaging, it is a terrible look.

I like that Buddha quote. Jesus was an inspiration for King.

Discuss

The American revolution could have been done with nonviolent methods had Washington and the rest taken that route. It'd have taken longer, but it clearly could have worked. The Russian people overthrew the communists largely by deciding not to comply and that was a lot tougher than anything the English government was going to dish out.

Violence is only justified in self-defence (and the defence of others). If Nazis are actively threatening or attacking someone they should be stopped.

I'd say they more difficult questions are when it stops being a political tool and starts being about protection and rescue. Rescuing Jews, Roma, and others from the Nazis required violence. How does one deal with the infliction of so much suffering nonviolently? I don't know. It is extremely difficult to maintain a nonviolent practice until he face of such barbarity. Same with Rwanda. And the Civil War. It is hard to condemn generations to slavery while a slower nonviolent approach proceeds

@Ogion

well what did the founders do that was wrong? I don't think the crown would have let the USA go freely without any kind of economic recompense, and the way the founders went about it was simply separating themselves from what they saw as tyranny.

the British sent troops to Concord. would it have been fine to let them disarm the colonies? Even Ghandi was against that

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

@JY - ya got the order of events in the revolutionary war mixed up there.

i did didn't i, the declaration was in response to the british violating our rights.

sorry folks

wait, no, lexington and concord was first

were** bleh

oh i see what i said, sorry about that

"the Declaration of Independence was just saying they were separating, once the British sent soldiers to Concord, that was a declaration of war."

declaration of independence was a reaction. blehhhh

sorry i can't type

Is it okay to punch venomous snakes that slother toward you?

@brainbomb

https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2016/5-30/NBBpOdNEd9-14.png

yes

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPpYHaXA4ys/

@DO

That post actually is really illustrative of the problem with modern political rheotirc. The actual action of violence upon another person for their beliefs is not even in doubt in their minds, rather violent action is just like any other political tool they would yield.

Also

They said they'd punch my cat and i don't appreciate that

https://puu.sh/xbB8I/c82481f2e9.png

Nazis prey on young and impressionable people to spread their filth, and would use instances of being punched to show them and say "SEE? WE'RE THE OPPRESSED ONES!" And because young, impressionable people are young and impressionable, they'd fall for that bullshit.

Also what Ogion said.

Or, you can stop being a dipshit by joking about your cat being a nazi

@JY

I'm afraid DO does nazi the joke you're trying to make.

Levity is a hero's errand.

Context Matter James. That quote is in the context of suggesting Indians fight in WWI as British citizens (also something his views changed on in the years following 1914.) as a campaign tactic

https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/what-gandhi-really-thought-about-guns/

The notion that using a lot of guns is compatible with either satyagraha or ahimsa is pretty clearly failing to understand the point.

I see James' douchebag squad is expanding, how nice.