"Using violence to aggressively do something is evil. Using violence to stop evil is not evil, obviously, and I'm totally opposed to violence. It's a last resort weapon." - Gary
2b, I think this video is extraordinarily misleading and could even be seen as slanderous, unless you have some direct quotes that counter these statements?
I read your emotional PM. I have no interest in communicating with you or with going through any more of the minutiae of Gary's eradicate inconsistent ramblings. If you think he makes sense and that what he says is anything but abusive angry nonsense, then just keep watching him. I have no interest in see one more second of him or his videos.
If by "emotional" you mean friendly, calm and rational, then I'd have to agree. :)
Whether you watch Gary's vids or not is of no concern to me whatsoever. What does concern me, however is that you made an accusation that you have yet to provide evidence for which leads me to the conclusion that this video is merely an attempt at a negative smear campaign against him. It's really quite a reasonable assumption on my part.
@carmel1119 I am not engaged in any campaigns. You don't like the truth. Which is your prerogative . It does not change the fact that human beings were died because a large corporation, I G Farben, sold poison gas, Zyklon B, to the Nazis, and the fact is that gas was used to kill vast numbers of human beings. The person you want to claim as a hero denied that. He should be ashamed. He is not. Sad but true. If you were " friendly, calm and rational" you would not be defending his actions.
"the truth" is what I'm seeking, which is why I requested quotes from you. As I already expressed, I only judge people's ideologies based upon direct observation or quotes, not hearsay or gossip. It's a reasonable request, but if you don't want to substantiate your claims then, so be it.
@carmel1119 I have repeatedly substantiated my claims. I don't have to do so again for you. If you want to believe Gary's emotional nonsense, please feel free.
Violence now days is not like violence of old days. Violence in old times was based on equal technology a knife a musket and later a gun. But now days you can not expect equal technology. Violence is a failure in todays setting. Organizing and reorganizing, replacing old corporations with new that serve employees and customers are the ways of the future. Violence is a way to invite the demise of the movement.
Violence only seems to have created more problems in this world. If violence solved everyone's problems, wars would probably not have to be fought anymore. But, the people in power in this world, seem to be unfortunately caught in this cycle of greed.
Why we sould be concernd about the noble and prists after conquests, inquistions, colonialism etc.? They should take the responability and die.
There are structural violence in this system of state & capitalism. Vast majority is subordinate to despotism of capital that is protected by the sate. If you want to end this, make a radical change, system will react violently. Thous who advocate violence are preparing you fo it.
@DerivedEnergy G'day... Well, where's the subtlety in pretending that choosing Violence is sometimes acceptable. For the Ethnocentric In-Group..? To use against whomsoever they have Paranoid Fantasies about..? Violence is a Total Failure, as any kind of Problem-Solving Strategy, and I enjoy the irony that the Meek shall inherit the Earth when ALL the violent Cowards have composted each other's DNA. Triumphal Pacifism. Yay Team ! Great Godtheory.
@alovelytime Well, the more often a Primate fights, the more often they fight away from their home territory. And the more often the Primate fights away from their territory the more often they lose. Eg Vietnam, Iraq, & Absurdistan. So now the US Military is about to go home. & beat their own Civilians. Meanwhile, Combat Vet's kids have 3x the Suicide Deathrate of the Background Pop.. Choose Violence, YOUR Genes Die !
A lot of people don't understand, the first French Revolution in the 18th c. (there were three more in the 19th c.) was fomented by bourgeois lawyers who would have been happy to let the monarchs stay. I don't know where we got this idea that starving poor did this nor that it was any kind of success! All revolutions end in betrayal and most of the people who died in all that were just ordinary folks, clergy next, aristos last. Uprated and favorited.
it,s all well and good to say violence doesn,t work but humans are violent...you just peel away enough "civilsed" layers and there it will be...i suspect we,re the most violent things this planet has ever thrown up....nasty little bipeds trying to pretend butter wouldn,t melt
Think about the fact that that thin layer of civility is what keeps us from each other's throats, and we should be grateful that it exists. We should be trying to make sure it's more resilient. We should not be advocating using violence to tear it down.
@alovelytime G'day. Nice try Grasshopper, but ; Asimov wrote it into the mouth of Salvor Hardin, the Mayor of (the Independant Planet), Foundation. He was leading a Resistance Movement against a Coalition of overwhelming Forces, any one of which could have crushed him... He was constantly stating "Violence Is The Last Refuge Of The Incompetant !" to restrain the Empty-Headed Militarists on HIS own Side. Search 'ANZAC Day - Long Version' please.
you are wrong here. more often than not, when it came to civil matters, violence was the logical and just alternative that saved lives, and led to peace and justice.
@alovelytime that sounds reasonable.....i think at the end of the day 2b is just appalled by the fact that she would like to kick inmendham in the nuts
What are you talking about? Look at the Russian Revolution. A lot of partisan blood shed followed by years of anguish and deprivation that eventually allowed Stalin to come to power.
The French Revolution? Again, lots of misery, blood shed death with each power faction attacking the other. Eventually, Napoleon rose to power, declared himself emperor and made France a dictatorship.
Read some history. Read some Thoreau and Gandhi while your at it.
i suggest you look at the liberation struggles against european colonial and capitalist imperial barbarity. there you will see the general tendancy that makes the rule, as ive stated.
gandhi knew that violence was not a tactical necessity.
Yes, let's look at the European colonial struggle. How 'bout India's struggle? If you are going to take the revisionist position that Gandhi's avocation of non-violence was not instrumental there, then I think you are being silly. How about those liberation struggles which were extremely violent though? How did they fare? Do you think Rwanda, Angola, Zaire and others which have suffered bloody revolutions are success stories? If so, I suggest you Google Rwanda genocide/Congo war.
gandhi knew that there was no tactical need to use violence. how does that mean his non-violence wasnt instrumental?
the violent liberation struggles in asia, africa, and south america all required tactical violence in order to save lives. for the most part, without this violence, more people would have died. ur still using the exception as the rule, while ignoring the legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
i suggest u think critically and realise ur contention is absurd
I was fortunate enough to meet the Peace Pilgrim once (If you don't know who that is you can google her), and - though I don't know if she was quoting someone or if it was original - I remember that she told me,
@2bsirius G'day... Zombepictureshow steered me here. I'm glad I came... Um, Asimov wrote in "Foundation" that Violence is the Last Refuge of the Incompetant. I would add, also the Selfish, the Angry, the Arrogant, the Ignorant, the Foolish, the Fearful and the Paranoid... I'm a Pacifist, & had a Home Invader 2 yrs ago. Search "It Is Better To Be Selfless..." for a walkthrough of the incident. Being Non Resistant was what resolved the Violence. Ciao !
Ok, to falsify your claim that people who advocate taking up violence to solve civil problems should not be listened to, we need to think of only one situation where most people would agree that violent action is a justifiable solution. That's really very easy, because there are plenty of civil problems that themselves are violent. So, when someone advocates the raiding and arrest by armed police of criminal gangs who use commit armed robbery, should they be ignored?
MLK Jr. changed the world. Malcolm X had little effect. Nonviolent civil disobedience shows the world who is more moral. I was in the Marines and I still hold this view. "...You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Don't you know it's gonna be all right All right, all right..."
mlk "achieved" what was already an unstoppable wave of world-wide of civil rights. in fact, he supported the armed struggles in the colonized world. he was actually becoming, if not an advocate then a supporter of violence against the oppressor at home and abroad.
the Buddha was once asked how far one should go to not cause harm to another. he replied with an allegoric tale in which a Buddha(himself in a previous incarnation) killed a murderer on a rampage. he killed the murderer for the sake of others, as well as for the sake of the murderer himself.
So now you're enlisting the Buddha into the idea that violence accomplishes something? Oh and incarnation too btw?
Hmm...“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.” Trying to relieve violence and suffering by saying we need to create more of it to heal what is already here just won't work and no amount of wishful thinking will make it work.
violence may be required from time to time to keep the peace. thats all im saying. what is wrong with you that you cant see that simple truth? thats true whether its in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood of nations.
your contention that violence solves nothing is absurd. that is all.
@2bsirius Thanks. It doesn't take much insight to trump the angry troglodytes. Throw something shiny into the crowd and they'll beat each other to death with bones. There's a lot of angry rhetoric, but if something justified was called for in the name of civilization most of them would flee and revert to survivalism. Unfortunately not everyone carries the torch of reasoned morality, but someday I hope to see the Promethiazation of the masses. To coin a word. ;D
Are we having another pearl clutching moment about Gary again? LOL! Sounds to me like your advocating an 'amish shun' because you don't like someone's opinion. Would you do the same to Malcom X and demand that no one listen to him? And sorry violence HAS solved problems, on occasion. And no, not just wars. Just let him run his mouth and stop worrying about it. Freethought and the concept of the market place of ideas demands that even loathsome opinions be heard
@cehbeach 'Amish shun'? The only attempts at ostracism are those directed at anyone who questions Gary's absurd attempts at 'logic'.
He runs his mouth off without thinking and then he's applauded. No one is trying to stop free thought at all. But while we're defending it, it's also great to think about what's really being said. When we turn off our brains and rubberstamp nonsense, as a lot of Inmendham's fans seem intent on doing, nothing good results.
@2bsirius LOL! Gary's fans are trying to silence you? I think they're pretty much in line with ignoring you already. But that's neither here nor there. The question I still have is why do you care so much? Also who's turning off their brains? That's a very arrogant statement. Just because someone agrees with a controversial opinion, that you don't hold, doesn't mean they're unthinking sheep. That sounds a lot like right wingers saying people are 'commies' for not believing as they do
@2bsirius All I'm really saying is just let them do their thing. I mean, aren't you actually working in their favor by highlighting their controversial opinions? You may be inadvertently engaging in the 'forbidden fruit' tactic. People are attracted to controversy and someone going against the grain like moths to a flame
I'm thinking that maybe I misunderstand you because there are many civil problems that have been solved through violent conflict. Even recently in the middle East we have seen violence ending in some kind of a solution to a problem. I wouldn't say it's a good way to solve problems, nor a desirable way, but that is not the issue.
2bsirius ...."it will not work", did you mean to say, you do not want it to happen? For it can work and history has countless example where it did work. Maybe you feelings of what you want to happen or not want to happen has clouded your logic or your forthrightness?
An interesting statistic in the U.S. is that when the Wall Street Crash happened in 1929 the 1% owned 24% of the wealth of the nation. In 2008 when the economy crashed again the 1% also owned 24% of the wealth of the nation. Interesting coincidence.
Even now the elite are trying to solidify their hold on the wealth they have acquired by using their political power through the Republican party to deregulate and protect the low taxation of the 1%.
You can never outsmart the brute force of aggression but simple mindedly being more agressive yourself.
If you think you can only stop aggression by being more brutal and aggression yourself, you must not be able to think critically about why that strategy is very likely doomed to failure.
@2bsirius Nono, by "stopping western aggression" I didn't mean with aggression. I meant pulling troops out, and truly ending escalation. Sorry, I was on my way to class when I wrote that.
It's all about power through wealth. The French Revolution was class warfare. In the years preceding it, the wealthy elite acted in ways to retain their wealth at the expense of the powerless.
Instead they ignored the inequality in their society and took measures to reinforce this inequality to the point that the population had said enough. The violence was necessary and beneficial in ushering in a more just and equitable life for millions. Progress can be very bloody.
The inequalities are real, but when the solution is violence it's not a solution.
You need to read some history and stop posting comments intended to incite unthinking people to think bloodshed and violence will fix problems. It won't. But superficial ideologues have preached violent idea like yours throughout centuries of human untold misery and horror.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
@2bsiriusPart 1. I have read history and I combine that with my interests in ethology and ethnology to give me a better perspective. You accuse me of incitement to violence, I disagree. I neither incite nor denounce, I just observe and interpret.
Your naive plea for pacifism irregardless of consequence is the philosophy of a professional victim.
The french revolution was a world changing event. It ushered in a new era of liberty and democracy in Europe that spread throughout the western world.
@2bsirius Part 2. By attacking the power and confiscating the wealth of the aristocracy and the church it provided the potential for a more just society.
All I am pointing out as that we may be living in a time when history may in fact repeat itself.
Many don't see the cause of the U.K. riots of 2011, but the U.K. is a class ridden society. All an english person has to do is open their mouth and speak and you can recognize the class they are from. The class distinctions are apparent....
@2bsirius Part 3. Many think that the riots were the acknowledgement that the inequalities in that society are reaching a breaking point.
My assertion is that the elite should heed the warning signs, and rather than making attempts to solidify the wealth and power and privilege, they better take care to curb their lust or it will be off with their heads.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, why would humans be any different.
Reason and rational consideration is what the 99% want and will demand.
The inequalities are real, but when the solution is violence it's not a solution.
You need to read some history and stop posting comments intended to incite unthinking people to think bloodshed and violence will fix problems. It won't. But superficial ideologues have preached violent ideas like yours throughout centuries of human untold misery and horror.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
He wasted our time by talking about how he's upset that you waste time by correcting your spelling? He's wasting our time with his yankee misconception and justification of the civil war. But as much as I love you, 2b, I think he said a lot of good stuff in the video you linked to. I didn't hear him advocating violence, but that certain non-violent movements are not effective.
"I didn't hear him advocating violence, but that certain non-violent movements are not effective."
That's interesting that your perceptions are so different from 2b's. That's why I think it would've been helpful if 2b's provided some direct quotes from Gary to support her allegations that he advocates violence.
(I haven't watched the interview yet, so have no opinion on the matter.)
I think people often confuse violence with showing of authority. I believe that revolutions should not end in slaughter like the Paris Commune. People need to get desired result by talking what belongs to them by means of expropriation. Workers need a way to defend themselves hence they need to be armed. Workers have the potential to show their authority without violence by surprise strikes and collective action. Such revolutions when successful spread quickly and the bourgeoisie knows that.
Agreed. Violence leads to suffering and suffering can lead back to violence unless there is communal support, education and empathy. Violence is gradually being phased out. Now this revolution, the Occupy Movement, we know the 1% live off our labor, they would die if we did not work for them. We do not need to be violent towards them, we need to take care of one another. We need to disconnect ourselves from them and stop treating the 1% as if they are our leaders. We can live without violence.
So he is advocating starting violence and the examples he gives to justify that attitude are cases where the other side started violence and we defended ourselves o.0
Violence is only acceptable when used defensively and even then only as a very last resort after ALL other options have been tried and failed and we're up against the wall about to be shot
A quote from Gary from, the video you linked:
"Using violence to aggressively do something is evil. Using violence to stop evil is not evil, obviously, and I'm totally opposed to violence. It's a last resort weapon." - Gary
2b, I think this video is extraordinarily misleading and could even be seen as slanderous, unless you have some direct quotes that counter these statements?
carmel1119 4 weeks ago
@carmel1119
I read your emotional PM. I have no interest in communicating with you or with going through any more of the minutiae of Gary's eradicate inconsistent ramblings. If you think he makes sense and that what he says is anything but abusive angry nonsense, then just keep watching him. I have no interest in see one more second of him or his videos.
2bsirius 2 weeks ago
@2bsirius
If by "emotional" you mean friendly, calm and rational, then I'd have to agree. :)
Whether you watch Gary's vids or not is of no concern to me whatsoever. What does concern me, however is that you made an accusation that you have yet to provide evidence for which leads me to the conclusion that this video is merely an attempt at a negative smear campaign against him. It's really quite a reasonable assumption on my part.
carmel1119 2 weeks ago
@carmel1119 I am not engaged in any campaigns. You don't like the truth. Which is your prerogative . It does not change the fact that human beings were died because a large corporation, I G Farben, sold poison gas, Zyklon B, to the Nazis, and the fact is that gas was used to kill vast numbers of human beings. The person you want to claim as a hero denied that. He should be ashamed. He is not. Sad but true. If you were " friendly, calm and rational" you would not be defending his actions.
2bsirius 2 weeks ago
@2bsirius
"the truth" is what I'm seeking, which is why I requested quotes from you. As I already expressed, I only judge people's ideologies based upon direct observation or quotes, not hearsay or gossip. It's a reasonable request, but if you don't want to substantiate your claims then, so be it.
Take Care.
carmel1119 1 week ago
@carmel1119 I have repeatedly substantiated my claims. I don't have to do so again for you. If you want to believe Gary's emotional nonsense, please feel free.
2bsirius 6 days ago
Violence now days is not like violence of old days. Violence in old times was based on equal technology a knife a musket and later a gun. But now days you can not expect equal technology. Violence is a failure in todays setting. Organizing and reorganizing, replacing old corporations with new that serve employees and customers are the ways of the future. Violence is a way to invite the demise of the movement.
JusticeIsWhere 1 month ago
Violence only seems to have created more problems in this world. If violence solved everyone's problems, wars would probably not have to be fought anymore. But, the people in power in this world, seem to be unfortunately caught in this cycle of greed.
HaleyMary 1 month ago
Violence solves plenty of problems.
We all know it does and that "violence solves nothing" is just a naive cliche parents tell their kids
void110 1 month ago
Agreed violence solves nothing. Hatred, as differentiated from anger handled appropriately, only begets more hatred.
NumeralScientist 1 month ago
Why we sould be concernd about the noble and prists after conquests, inquistions, colonialism etc.? They should take the responability and die.
There are structural violence in this system of state & capitalism. Vast majority is subordinate to despotism of capital that is protected by the sate. If you want to end this, make a radical change, system will react violently. Thous who advocate violence are preparing you fo it.
organdva 1 month ago
Blood alone moves the wheels of history.
People who deny this should not be listened to.
naughtycannon 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy G'day... Well, where's the subtlety in pretending that choosing Violence is sometimes acceptable. For the Ethnocentric In-Group..? To use against whomsoever they have Paranoid Fantasies about..? Violence is a Total Failure, as any kind of Problem-Solving Strategy, and I enjoy the irony that the Meek shall inherit the Earth when ALL the violent Cowards have composted each other's DNA. Triumphal Pacifism. Yay Team ! Great Godtheory.
WarblesOnALot 1 month ago
@2bsirius No worries. A pleasure !
@alovelytime Well, the more often a Primate fights, the more often they fight away from their home territory. And the more often the Primate fights away from their territory the more often they lose. Eg Vietnam, Iraq, & Absurdistan. So now the US Military is about to go home. & beat their own Civilians. Meanwhile, Combat Vet's kids have 3x the Suicide Deathrate of the Background Pop.. Choose Violence, YOUR Genes Die !
WarblesOnALot 1 month ago
@WarblesOnALot
the violence of the oppressor is not the violence of the defender
alovelytime 1 month ago
@WarblesOnALot ''Combat Vet's kids have 3x the Suicide Deathrate of the Background Pop...Choose Violence, YOUR Genes Die !''
Is there no subtlety and nuance to your thinking?
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
A lot of people don't understand, the first French Revolution in the 18th c. (there were three more in the 19th c.) was fomented by bourgeois lawyers who would have been happy to let the monarchs stay. I don't know where we got this idea that starving poor did this nor that it was any kind of success! All revolutions end in betrayal and most of the people who died in all that were just ordinary folks, clergy next, aristos last. Uprated and favorited.
slobomotion 1 month ago
@2bsirius yes...otherwise you would kick inmendham in the nuts
lapisredux 1 month ago
it,s all well and good to say violence doesn,t work but humans are violent...you just peel away enough "civilsed" layers and there it will be...i suspect we,re the most violent things this planet has ever thrown up....nasty little bipeds trying to pretend butter wouldn,t melt
lapisredux 1 month ago
@lapisredux
Think about the fact that that thin layer of civility is what keeps us from each other's throats, and we should be grateful that it exists. We should be trying to make sure it's more resilient. We should not be advocating using violence to tear it down.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius well sure,but there is an exception to every rule so you could kick inmendham in the nuts
lapisredux 1 month ago
@alovelytime G'day. Nice try Grasshopper, but ; Asimov wrote it into the mouth of Salvor Hardin, the Mayor of (the Independant Planet), Foundation. He was leading a Resistance Movement against a Coalition of overwhelming Forces, any one of which could have crushed him... He was constantly stating "Violence Is The Last Refuge Of The Incompetant !" to restrain the Empty-Headed Militarists on HIS own Side. Search 'ANZAC Day - Long Version' please.
WarblesOnALot 1 month ago
@WarblesOnALot
g'day. ok.
failing to non-violently convince a violent murderous oppressor to cease is evidence of diplomatic incompetance. that is all.
but failing to use the alternative to diplomacy, and accepting the murder of the oppressed, is the ultimate incompetance
alovelytime 1 month ago
you are wrong here. more often than not, when it came to civil matters, violence was the logical and just alternative that saved lives, and led to peace and justice.
alovelytime 1 month ago
@alovelytime that sounds reasonable.....i think at the end of the day 2b is just appalled by the fact that she would like to kick inmendham in the nuts
lapisredux 1 month ago
@alovelytime
What are you talking about? Look at the Russian Revolution. A lot of partisan blood shed followed by years of anguish and deprivation that eventually allowed Stalin to come to power.
The French Revolution? Again, lots of misery, blood shed death with each power faction attacking the other. Eventually, Napoleon rose to power, declared himself emperor and made France a dictatorship.
Read some history. Read some Thoreau and Gandhi while your at it.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius
exceptions dont make the rule.
i suggest you look at the liberation struggles against european colonial and capitalist imperial barbarity. there you will see the general tendancy that makes the rule, as ive stated.
gandhi knew that violence was not a tactical necessity.
alovelytime 1 month ago
@alovelytime
Yes, let's look at the European colonial struggle. How 'bout India's struggle? If you are going to take the revisionist position that Gandhi's avocation of non-violence was not instrumental there, then I think you are being silly. How about those liberation struggles which were extremely violent though? How did they fare? Do you think Rwanda, Angola, Zaire and others which have suffered bloody revolutions are success stories? If so, I suggest you Google Rwanda genocide/Congo war.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius .
gandhi knew that there was no tactical need to use violence. how does that mean his non-violence wasnt instrumental?
the violent liberation struggles in asia, africa, and south america all required tactical violence in order to save lives. for the most part, without this violence, more people would have died. ur still using the exception as the rule, while ignoring the legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
i suggest u think critically and realise ur contention is absurd
alovelytime 1 month ago
I was fortunate enough to meet the Peace Pilgrim once (If you don't know who that is you can google her), and - though I don't know if she was quoting someone or if it was original - I remember that she told me,
"There is no way to peace. The way *is* peace."
ThePeaceableKingdom 1 month ago
@ThePeaceableKingdom
Yes, I agree.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius G'day... Zombepictureshow steered me here. I'm glad I came... Um, Asimov wrote in "Foundation" that Violence is the Last Refuge of the Incompetant. I would add, also the Selfish, the Angry, the Arrogant, the Ignorant, the Foolish, the Fearful and the Paranoid... I'm a Pacifist, & had a Home Invader 2 yrs ago. Search "It Is Better To Be Selfless..." for a walkthrough of the incident. Being Non Resistant was what resolved the Violence. Ciao !
WarblesOnALot 1 month ago
@WarblesOnALot
asimov was speaking of the violence of the oppressor
alovelytime 1 month ago
@WarblesOnALot
Great comment. Thanks...
2bsirius 1 month ago
Ok, to falsify your claim that people who advocate taking up violence to solve civil problems should not be listened to, we need to think of only one situation where most people would agree that violent action is a justifiable solution. That's really very easy, because there are plenty of civil problems that themselves are violent. So, when someone advocates the raiding and arrest by armed police of criminal gangs who use commit armed robbery, should they be ignored?
Brascofarian 1 month ago
Monolith1618 1 month ago
@Monolith1618
mlk "achieved" what was already an unstoppable wave of world-wide of civil rights. in fact, he supported the armed struggles in the colonized world. he was actually becoming, if not an advocate then a supporter of violence against the oppressor at home and abroad.
alovelytime 1 month ago
@Monolith1618
and thats why he was shot dead
alovelytime 1 month ago
@alovelytime
You are simply under cutting your own 'logic'. "There are some causes worth dying for. There are none worth killing for." Albert Camus
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius
the Buddha was once asked how far one should go to not cause harm to another. he replied with an allegoric tale in which a Buddha(himself in a previous incarnation) killed a murderer on a rampage. he killed the murderer for the sake of others, as well as for the sake of the murderer himself.
alovelytime 1 month ago
@alovelytime
So now you're enlisting the Buddha into the idea that violence accomplishes something? Oh and incarnation too btw?
Hmm...“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.” Trying to relieve violence and suffering by saying we need to create more of it to heal what is already here just won't work and no amount of wishful thinking will make it work.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius
violence may be required from time to time to keep the peace. thats all im saying. what is wrong with you that you cant see that simple truth? thats true whether its in your neighborhood or in the neighborhood of nations.
your contention that violence solves nothing is absurd. that is all.
alovelytime 1 month ago
@Monolith1618
I'm SO GLAD to read a few well thought out comments in all the hot headed nonsense being posted here. Yup, John Lennon was a genius!
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius Thanks. It doesn't take much insight to trump the angry troglodytes. Throw something shiny into the crowd and they'll beat each other to death with bones. There's a lot of angry rhetoric, but if something justified was called for in the name of civilization most of them would flee and revert to survivalism. Unfortunately not everyone carries the torch of reasoned morality, but someday I hope to see the Promethiazation of the masses. To coin a word. ;D
Monolith1618 1 month ago
@Monolith1618
Yes, well said.
2bsirius 1 month ago
Inmendham preaches a death cult philosophy where violence hovers too close to the surface.
deepashtray 1 month ago
Are we having another pearl clutching moment about Gary again? LOL! Sounds to me like your advocating an 'amish shun' because you don't like someone's opinion. Would you do the same to Malcom X and demand that no one listen to him? And sorry violence HAS solved problems, on occasion. And no, not just wars. Just let him run his mouth and stop worrying about it. Freethought and the concept of the market place of ideas demands that even loathsome opinions be heard
cehbeach 1 month ago
@cehbeach 'Amish shun'? The only attempts at ostracism are those directed at anyone who questions Gary's absurd attempts at 'logic'.
He runs his mouth off without thinking and then he's applauded. No one is trying to stop free thought at all. But while we're defending it, it's also great to think about what's really being said. When we turn off our brains and rubberstamp nonsense, as a lot of Inmendham's fans seem intent on doing, nothing good results.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius LOL! Gary's fans are trying to silence you? I think they're pretty much in line with ignoring you already. But that's neither here nor there. The question I still have is why do you care so much? Also who's turning off their brains? That's a very arrogant statement. Just because someone agrees with a controversial opinion, that you don't hold, doesn't mean they're unthinking sheep. That sounds a lot like right wingers saying people are 'commies' for not believing as they do
cehbeach 1 month ago
@2bsirius All I'm really saying is just let them do their thing. I mean, aren't you actually working in their favor by highlighting their controversial opinions? You may be inadvertently engaging in the 'forbidden fruit' tactic. People are attracted to controversy and someone going against the grain like moths to a flame
cehbeach 1 month ago
I'm thinking that maybe I misunderstand you because there are many civil problems that have been solved through violent conflict. Even recently in the middle East we have seen violence ending in some kind of a solution to a problem. I wouldn't say it's a good way to solve problems, nor a desirable way, but that is not the issue.
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
2bsirius ...."it will not work", did you mean to say, you do not want it to happen? For it can work and history has countless example where it did work. Maybe you feelings of what you want to happen or not want to happen has clouded your logic or your forthrightness?
masluxx 1 month ago
An interesting statistic in the U.S. is that when the Wall Street Crash happened in 1929 the 1% owned 24% of the wealth of the nation. In 2008 when the economy crashed again the 1% also owned 24% of the wealth of the nation. Interesting coincidence.
Even now the elite are trying to solidify their hold on the wealth they have acquired by using their political power through the Republican party to deregulate and protect the low taxation of the 1%.
Hints of the French Revolution are here now.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago 5
The age of violence has passed. It's time to look forward to how to dodge it.
TrueEmergence 1 month ago
@TrueEmergence
tell that to those suffering against western aggression
alovelytime 1 month ago
@alovelytime Exactly, stopping western aggression...
TrueEmergence 1 month ago
@TrueEmergence
You can never outsmart the brute force of aggression but simple mindedly being more agressive yourself.
If you think you can only stop aggression by being more brutal and aggression yourself, you must not be able to think critically about why that strategy is very likely doomed to failure.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius Nono, by "stopping western aggression" I didn't mean with aggression. I meant pulling troops out, and truly ending escalation. Sorry, I was on my way to class when I wrote that.
TrueEmergence 1 month ago
It's all about power through wealth. The French Revolution was class warfare. In the years preceding it, the wealthy elite acted in ways to retain their wealth at the expense of the powerless.
Instead they ignored the inequality in their society and took measures to reinforce this inequality to the point that the population had said enough. The violence was necessary and beneficial in ushering in a more just and equitable life for millions. Progress can be very bloody.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago 3
@MyGodTheresNoGod
The inequalities are real, but when the solution is violence it's not a solution.
You need to read some history and stop posting comments intended to incite unthinking people to think bloodshed and violence will fix problems. It won't. But superficial ideologues have preached violent idea like yours throughout centuries of human untold misery and horror.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
2bsirius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2bsiriusPart 1. I have read history and I combine that with my interests in ethology and ethnology to give me a better perspective. You accuse me of incitement to violence, I disagree. I neither incite nor denounce, I just observe and interpret.
Your naive plea for pacifism irregardless of consequence is the philosophy of a professional victim.
The french revolution was a world changing event. It ushered in a new era of liberty and democracy in Europe that spread throughout the western world.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2bsirius Part 2. By attacking the power and confiscating the wealth of the aristocracy and the church it provided the potential for a more just society.
All I am pointing out as that we may be living in a time when history may in fact repeat itself.
Many don't see the cause of the U.K. riots of 2011, but the U.K. is a class ridden society. All an english person has to do is open their mouth and speak and you can recognize the class they are from. The class distinctions are apparent....
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2bsirius Part 3. Many think that the riots were the acknowledgement that the inequalities in that society are reaching a breaking point.
My assertion is that the elite should heed the warning signs, and rather than making attempts to solidify the wealth and power and privilege, they better take care to curb their lust or it will be off with their heads.
Nature is red in tooth and claw, why would humans be any different.
Reason and rational consideration is what the 99% want and will demand.
MyGodTheresNoGod 1 month ago
@MyGodTheresNoGod
The inequalities are real, but when the solution is violence it's not a solution.
You need to read some history and stop posting comments intended to incite unthinking people to think bloodshed and violence will fix problems. It won't. But superficial ideologues have preached violent ideas like yours throughout centuries of human untold misery and horror.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
2bsirius 1 month ago
He wasted our time by talking about how he's upset that you waste time by correcting your spelling? He's wasting our time with his yankee misconception and justification of the civil war. But as much as I love you, 2b, I think he said a lot of good stuff in the video you linked to. I didn't hear him advocating violence, but that certain non-violent movements are not effective.
paxguerilla 1 month ago
@paxguerilla
"I didn't hear him advocating violence, but that certain non-violent movements are not effective."
That's interesting that your perceptions are so different from 2b's. That's why I think it would've been helpful if 2b's provided some direct quotes from Gary to support her allegations that he advocates violence.
(I haven't watched the interview yet, so have no opinion on the matter.)
carmel1119 4 weeks ago
Violence is the last resort of an idiot.
mrgodbehere 1 month ago
@mrgodbehere
wrong
alovelytime 1 month ago
I think people often confuse violence with showing of authority. I believe that revolutions should not end in slaughter like the Paris Commune. People need to get desired result by talking what belongs to them by means of expropriation. Workers need a way to defend themselves hence they need to be armed. Workers have the potential to show their authority without violence by surprise strikes and collective action. Such revolutions when successful spread quickly and the bourgeoisie knows that.
kaushiksays 1 month ago
2b & the troll king sitting in a tree...
¦;¬]
TWITfromURANUS 1 month ago
Good of you to say that. It's an important message.
Zerafinel 1 month ago
Agreed. Violence leads to suffering and suffering can lead back to violence unless there is communal support, education and empathy. Violence is gradually being phased out. Now this revolution, the Occupy Movement, we know the 1% live off our labor, they would die if we did not work for them. We do not need to be violent towards them, we need to take care of one another. We need to disconnect ourselves from them and stop treating the 1% as if they are our leaders. We can live without violence.
ABitOfTheUniverse 1 month ago
"he brought up ww2 ..."
So he is advocating starting violence and the examples he gives to justify that attitude are cases where the other side started violence and we defended ourselves o.0
Violence is only acceptable when used defensively and even then only as a very last resort after ALL other options have been tried and failed and we're up against the wall about to be shot
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
Everything the state does is violence. you should be anarchist.
greenghost2008 1 month ago
1st
wiccanmoonman 1 month ago
The US dollar is backed by the threat, and the implementation, of violence.
carefulcarpenter 1 month ago 2