Alligatorjandro
Banned
Are you saying he hasn't built a campaign off of hate?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any" -huffingtonpost
- Thread starter Sir Alemeth
- Start date
- Status
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
Well then you know what I'm talking about then. It's always the sort of weak and pathetic people that need guns with them at all times to feel safe. Honestly, I think we can both agree that the gun thing fucking sucks. There are too many guns here. It's awful.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Truth. 100%.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
Oh, he definitely has.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
It's a good thing violence isn't one of those things that spirals out of control, or I'd be worried.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Talk about losing the plot. Allowing Trump to dictate the level of discourse in this country is the worst idea imaginable. What's next, justifying lying and open-faced racism because hey, he did it first? Grow the fuck up. Demand better.
Donald Trump is a blowhard who rarely thinks before he speaks. He is wildly unqualified to be President, not because he's an idiot, but because he lacks the restraint (qualities that have helped his rise). In no world do I think he "hates" anyone. I do no think he hates Mexicans, Muslims or gays. I think he is incredibly ignorant, undisciplined and thin-skinned.
I certainly do not think he is a fascist and really hate that we have becomes so far removed from the beginning of the 20th century that we don't bat an eye when this label is used.
KidGalactus
Member
And so, it has come to this....
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Why do people keep underestimating Trump, his rhetoric, and the people who support it?
People are already getting affected by people like them. With the potential for it to get far worse.
I really hope those dedicated to non-violence don't plan on half-assing it. We can't afford that. We couldn't and yet guys like Trump still rose up.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Trump is helping white supremacist groups rise again. The leaders of those groups have said that. Whether or not he believes what he says doesnt matter as he is having a hand in bringing hate back.
Abstrusity
Member
It's always about moral justifications. If you can hold the reins long enough to fix everything before being ousted or show everyone that it doesn't actually work that way...either way, it requires violence.
Like it or not, peoples' lives are in danger should their ilk be granted any more power than they already have. Causal links have been established between world unrest and water and food scarcity brought on by climate change that continues to be denied. LGBT and PoC continue to be ostracized, women continue to face sexism, still openly. ALL openly.
They don't understand anything else. They rely on their own definition of freedom -- the one that allows THEM the freedom to stamp out the freedom of others -- to stand on their respective moral high grounds. The longer this goes on, the easier it is to just say that they don't deserve freedom, and neither does anyone who would let this just keep happening.
Anyone who has seen the desperation the impoverished live their lives with, or heard the rabid screams for "justice" that are merely "vengeance" given an easily digestible name, should be able to see why they cannot be condoned. But anyone who has seen or at least knows how violent protest winds up should know better than to combat it with violence.
But then, what do you do? Picket? Vote? They'll just continue to coalesce in their little shitholes -- foxholes for the war they are raging against what the rest of the world considers progress. It might be a bit rough to claim that they, like all rabid animals, need to be put down.
But they aren't leaving us many immediate choices in the matter, and if you don't have the understanding that should rightfully be attained before having the moral high ground, you'll just make it worse.
Which brings us right back to anti-intellectualism, and the need to stamp out certain ideologies in order for a chosen society to function. Fascist and Communist societies did this plenty -- after all, actual intellectuals were the greatest threat to a regime that extorted its citizens and kept them under their thumb. Education was the enemy, so they shouldn't hear or know anything about the outside world, either.
So the options are to wait or use violence.
The impatient will use violence or at LEAST the threat of violence(preferable), but without much of a moral backing (a la non-violent protests with it), it'll turn more people against than you'll be disposing of.
The patient will use picketing and votes, but without the backing of an existential threat (a la violent protests with it), it won't have any teeth. It also works a lot less if you aren't a majority, or, you know, people don't vote.
But both of these also require rational discourse -- neither of those actually worked for Syria or...well, any of the Islamic Spring countries. They just ended up replacing despots with despots, and historically, that's how violent clashes end anyway.
Killing people doesn't kill an idea(most cases, it makes it more popular), only time and societal change does. But if we can't get that societal change through, time is immaterial.
So lies the great question: How do we force an idea out of a society? If we don't, it'll be Trump and people like him rampaging, anyway. If we force it with...force, it'll create a martyrdom situation. If we try to educate, they'll just ignore us, because to them, WE'RE the uneducated ones (after all, we condone poison in our water supply: fluoride!).
It broaches when I like to call "irrational rationality," being such that the irrational decision is an rational one given a set time frame. If you are suffering NOW, you want relief NOW, and the utility of a particularly irrational decision rises. Personally, I think that they just need an equal opposition, but the DNC has decisively not been that over the last 40 years. Violence is the easy way out that will only get you deeper into the maze. We'll never make a better world that way...but with the way our politicians act, it's almost as if they don't care to, to begin with.
tl;dr: This is the wrong way to go about things:
Gotdatmoney
Member
Before we even contemplate the necessity of violence the dude actually has to win. If the Republicans lose the General none of his dumb shit is gonna have long lasting implications.
He's not a fascist - he has no interest in corporatism in the fascist meaning of the word - but he is certainly a proto-fascist. The guy hits so many points from Eco's 14 Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt that it's uncanny.
I might be talking out of my ass, but this attitude of "when the underprivileged do wrong, it's righteous" sounds like dangerous infantilization. The world doesn't have to work that way, we can help and appreciate the underprivileged without giving them carte blanche.
Mammoth Jones
Member
All he has is the angry white vote. It's not enough to win.
Women? Blacks? Hispanics? He loses in all these key demos.
jackissocool
Member
When white supremacists march in the streets, beat them up
I cut my thumb on this.
Dsyndrome
Member
"Let's destroy some private property while we're at it, because why not."
jackissocool
Member
Sure
You old enough to vote?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The LA riots didn't do jack shit though. There is no change without the political will for it.
Violence against Trump supporters won't do anything either because they haven't shown signs of backing down against violence. The extremists on both sides are equally fervent. And the people on the left advocating the use of violence to get their point across are no better than Trump is.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Obama leaving is probably the most historical thing this country is experiencing right.
Like this needs to be in history books.
Like this needs to be in history books.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Simply existing will strengthen and reinforce the fears of racists. Point in case, American history in regards to African Americans. From slavery to present day there is this ever loom "fear" that black people will one day rise up and kill white people. It's an never ending narrative despite the fact black people have generally been nonviolent towards white America all the while white America inflicting horrors upon black America.
kame-sennin
Member
You're comparing the violent hate crimes and rise of white supremacist groups that black, latino, and muslim people have been threatened with to kindergarteners having playground fights? You're proving my point about liberals and their racism.
If you had said "When white supremacists march in the streets, beat them up", people would probably still argue with you. Ultimately, liberals pretend to have concern for minorities and support for leftist issues. But when the rubber meets the road, liberals will defend fascists and white nationalists for the sake of keeping 'order'. That's because fascists and liberals share a lot of the same fears. Both groups are afraid that minorities will stop passively accepting violence from the state and instead use violence themselves to take a more equitable position in society. This will hurt the property interests of liberals and fascists alike.
Minorities and leftists really need to understand that liberals do not and will not have your back. They don't care that homeless Mexican men are getting attacked on the street. Even if Hillary beats Trump, she and her supporters will do nothing to protect us from all the white nationalists who have been inspired by Trump. After this stupid little election is over, minorities will still have to worry about racists and fascists. Middle class liberals won't - which is why they can't understand why anyone would engage in violence over 'political disagreements'.
What? The KKK still do March in the streets. They get permits (it's crazy they get permits!) and protesters meet them and protest against them. They don't run up and start fighting them because when you take the progressive label, you're supposed to be better rthan your enemies. You either rise above or sink. I prefer keeping the company of those that can rise above. Be a fucking adult.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
ｎｖｍ
idofriar1313
Banned
has huffington post gone insane?
KonradLaw
Member
Hard to cheer for people who turn violent in their political agitation. Even if their cause is true, the violence tends to taint the movement. Plus you have to wonder how many of it's people are in it for the cause and how many just want to hurt other people and destroy things while being excused for their behaviour because of the cause.
The left seems to have. I always considered myself as a leftist, but this behavior has disgusted me as much as the right has for years. You clowns are the same.
Leftists are an exceedingly small percent of the political population in the US. You can safely still consider yourself a liberal.
King Tubby
Member
Please elaborate on how exactly minorities can use violence to improve their lot in society. What is the roadmap here, what is the end goal?
It's called political activism and involvement.
They could use violence the same way white people have been using it. Do enough physical damage until they get what they want. Seems pretty simple to me.
I though I was part of the progressive left.
Now the left looks more like the extreme right.
I guess I'm in the middle now.
I hope this author regrets his point of view if any persons are killed because of his words.
Must be amazing thinking you can decide who deserves to be hurt.
Now the left looks more like the extreme right.
I guess I'm in the middle now.
I hope this author regrets his point of view if any persons are killed because of his words.
Must be amazing thinking you can decide who deserves to be hurt.
That's really slowed Trump down.
People voted for "insert horrible tyrant here" too and violent revolution was needed to dethrone them.
Has anybody advocating for peaceful protest and activism reaped the benefits of the instutionalized oppression that isn't going to be eradicated in their lifetime?
I would say there is clearly a point where violence or violent resistence is the best choice out of all alternatives to prevent a point of no return toward total fascism, but I guess the billion dollar question will always be, how do you know when you have gotten to that point?
Or better yet, how can you ever know for certain unless you wait too long to find out?
Oppression is obviously a whole other dilemma. Though I would argue a lot less foggy to work out ethically.
Or better yet, how can you ever know for certain unless you wait too long to find out?
Oppression is obviously a whole other dilemma. Though I would argue a lot less foggy to work out ethically.
Everything you said right up to here made sense. Political violence does have a basis in legitimacy for those denied voices within the normal political structure. See: women denied suffrage, blacks denied suffrage, etc.
When riots broke out in various cities during the Civil Rights movement (Chicago and Watts comes to mind immediately), was that not political violence? When the 1992 LA Riots broke out over the Rodney King verdict (and assorted events that led up to the Rodney King beating), was that not political violence (at least for some)?
I don't understand what the endgame here is supposed to be. The article says some violent riots have lead to change, but never outlines the mechanic of how it would work in this instance.
What should we do in these violent protests? Punch Trump supporters until they stop voting for Trump? Shoot them? Or shoot Trump?
What should we do in these violent protests? Punch Trump supporters until they stop voting for Trump? Shoot them? Or shoot Trump?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
The article is actually arguing otherwise, that the end goal isn't just to make sure Trump loses the election.
Now feel free to disagree, as there's plenty wrong with this article (namely the comparisons with WW2 and the rise of Euro-fascism), but at least argue against the points being raised.
This point always seems to get ignored in these threads. An armed Trump supporter is going to defend themselves, entirely within their rights and the legal framework, and people here are going to freak.
Trump supporters have been shown on multiple occasions to be willing to attack non violent protesters. Seems like they don't really need the excuse of having the other side start first, so it's a moot point.
They've also been shown not to respond with violence after being attacked, so I don't know what your point is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked