The American Revolution didn’t go from 0 to 100 with a single violent act, nor was the violence of the Patriots unprovoked - it was caused by the violence of a repressive state apparatus.
Likewise, the Civil Rights Movement never went to the level of civil war - yet violence was still widely used in it. As even the great pacifist MLK Jr. said, and not as an abstract statement divorced from the circumstances of the time, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
Violence is not a boolean. And disregarding it as a potential tool is foolishness.
Well, if you want to live in violence then yeah go for it. Most people don’t tho.
Sometimes is about not living in violence tho. Like, this very post we’re replying to.
Yeah I hear ya. Which one you want? Violence or no violence. C’mon chop chop we gotta get the lunch rush in here.
I lived my life in peace and kindness. We live in violence anyway.
what it’s over? That’s a past tense there. How are you using lemmy from . . y’know . . beyond?
Ah yes, linguistic pragmatics. We have achieved comedy.
You’re making me want to choose violence
Violence isn’t a boolean.
To shiv or not to shiv. That is the question.
The American Revolution didn’t go from 0 to 100 with a single violent act, nor was the violence of the Patriots unprovoked - it was caused by the violence of a repressive state apparatus.
Likewise, the Civil Rights Movement never went to the level of civil war - yet violence was still widely used in it. As even the great pacifist MLK Jr. said, and not as an abstract statement divorced from the circumstances of the time, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
Violence is not a boolean. And disregarding it as a potential tool is foolishness.
True, true. Violence has all kinds of interpretations.