re reads 2nd amendment Huh. Now it makes sense.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
926 points (98.7% liked)
196
1446 readers
3493 users here now
This community only has one rule.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 days ago
MODERATORS
When two sides are fighting, and one uses violence and the other doesn't, side using violence almost always wins.
There is a broader strategic understanding of power, such that an underdog doing violence can afford the authoritarian government political capital to retaliate disproportionately. A peer doing violence authorizes retaliation in kind. A superior force doing violence can only realistically be retreated from until the tables can be turned.
Oct 7th is a great case in point. Palestinians revolted and Israelis spent the next year paying them back with hellfire missiles into ambulances and machine gun rounds into NICU units, while their friends in the US and Germany and Russia and Saudi Arabia clapped. Yemen and Iran interceding on Gaza's behalf might be seen as noble from a certain point of view, but it failed to halt the slaughter. Meanwhile, the Israelis and their American allies expanded the scope of violence into the West Bank, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, and Syria.
Using violence doesn't mean you'll win. It means you'll legitimize a reprisal (which threatens to legitimize a reprisal, etc, etc). Escalate far enough and you end up with the Twin Towers in flames or a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It ends with the obliteration of whole countries and the loss of millions of lives.
Who comes out ahead after all of this? Who benefits in the long run? I'm having a hard time finding any winners.
Sometimes violence just makes sure the other side doesn't win either.
Soap box
Ballot box
Ammo box <-- we are here not by choice, but we must answer
You missed jury box! Free Luigi!
Where does the beat box fit in?
You mean boombox?
You know, in the civil war, when they had the guys drumming to keep the march in time?
After Ballot and Before Ammo is Street. It's an important stage because if you can't get enough people in the street then the ammo box isn't going to help you.
In the frame of the four boxes, it's actually the jury box. But seeing how the judiciary is getting stacked against us, it's not a big stretch to say we're at box four
we’re at box four
I keep hearing this claim, but I see vanishingly few people with any kind of serious militant intent.
It seems like the "Ammo Box" is something nebulous ill-defined others do - be it a Silicon Valley Longtermist pilled vigilante like Luigi Mangione or a deranged horny Green Beret like Matthew Alan Livelsberger.
There's no actual progressive militia movement in the US.
If they're smart, then they're keeping it quiet and not posting about it on the internet.
If you're too terrified to flaunt your affiliations and organize openly, you aren't a serious threat to an establishment.
Was the French resistance not a serious threat?
Not until the US/UK threatened landfall in '41. Most of French resistance activity amounted getting leadership and equipment hidden before the Nazis could secure control over territory. They died in droves to do little more than prick the German war machine.
As counterintelligence, they were grand. German military reports leaked like a sieve throughout France, once the Allies reclaimed a beachhead. But as a fighting force, they were next to worthless.
You still really, like really need to fit street in there somewhere. If you skip it you risk a Les Misérables situation. Dying on the barricade for nothing.
Is that not the soap box?
I think of the soap box more as the politicians thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox
It's about freedom of speech, and the ability to get out and make your voice heard. That can be online, in the market square on an actual soapbox, or at a protest
I think the Geneva conventions were also something rather new because biological warfare, civilian hostages including women and children, massacres, and destruction of vital resources like food and water were pretty standard for thousands of years of war and combat.
Of course as history has shown, no one actually bothers to follow the Geneva conventions when they face zero consequences but will totally complain if anyone else doesn't (cough Israel cough).
Biological weapons, for the time being, are mutually banned because disease is hard to control in a warzone where anything has the chance to mutate or evolve. Gas attacks are used exclusively against civilians because every army has gas masks. Although iirc Iraq used it to create a massive untraversable barrier against Iran. Otherwise everything is apparently still the same.
I would also add that weaponizing rape is not a typical (though not totally absent) characteristic of peasant revolution whereas it is an extremely widespread (but not totally ubiquitous) characteristic of conquest/colonialism and political control of minorities by state projects.
Edit: Meant to respond to @drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Geneva convention only applies to losers. Winners write history.
I think there needs to be a bit of differentiation.
There always have been particularly ruthless and brutal armys, who would pillage, rape and murder civillians, just as there have been disciplined armys and leaders who made a point of only fighting the enemies army.
However the extent to which people could go about slaughter with swords, pikes and muskets is very different than the extent of machine guns, artillery, and carpet bombing.
Also it is psychologically researched that the further someone is to another human, the less empathy they feel. It takes much more decisiveness to slay someone with a sword than to shoot at him from a hundred meters than to press a button in your drone control room while having your coffee and the breakfast you got on the way driving to work.
War always has been brutal, but modern technologies have enabled the scaled and speed of destruction to go far beyond what was historically imaginable. So the need to create some sort of rules to limit the effects also has increased tremendously.
just as there have been disciplined armys and leaders who made a point of only fighting the enemies army.
Any examples?
Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub who liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187 was renowned for sparing Civillians.
Cool, thanks for digging this out of my memory... I learned about this dude in college and had completely forgot of his existence.
Sucks that we have to go back that far to find one though...
While I'm sure there's some that are worse than others I'm pretty sure every conflict has involved widespread rape.
Someone please correct me if you can. It would help me like humanity a little bit more.
A rich jackass with no actual government position took the podium at the presidential inauguration, did the nazi salute, and wasn't promptly shot or arrested. That says a lot about the state of this country.
There have been times where real Americans shot at Nazis instead of voting them into the White House.
Yeah, he did a nazi salute, not admitted to being a communist. Being a nazi has never not been accepted and normal in America.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I'm like 99% sure that "Violence is never the answer" is just yet ever more rich fuck propaganda.
I’m like 99% sure that “Violence is never the answer” is just yet ever more rich fuck propaganda.
"Violence (against the rich) is never the answer!" is what they really mean.
It's a good motto to not get into a petty fight for petty shit because of emotion. It did not mean all violence because you also need violence as a defence against violence.
On the other hand, if the next 4 years we(as in us who isn't from the US) didn't see a civil war or violence protest, then people like oop that love to repeat this stuff should totally go outside and touch grass. These teasing is getting tiring.
It’s also very Liberal propaganda.
Martin Luther King Jr. protested and he won so peaceful protest works!
While of course barely mentioning the Black Panthers and how MLK was suddenly a reasonable alternative to their violent resistance.
And his "peace" was met with an extreme act of violence. Certainly was an answer for someone(s).
The only reason MLK didn't do more was because what they were already doing was illegal, and anything more could get them jail time. And this is still what they thought of him and his "peaceful" protests:
They did the same shit when they pretended that BLM burned down cities. We really don't learn even from our recent history, huh?
dying at this, what a perfect demonstration
Same as it ever was.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›