126
Chicago ICE crackdown's first casualty, father of two, had built quiet life in US (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I mean at some point violence really is the answer right? You can’t just be a pacifist all the time otherwise they’ll erode your rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Paradox Of Tolerance

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
    ― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies - Volume One: The Spell of Plato

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I don't believe they are preaching pacifism, but responding specifically to "subhuman" and "mass graves". I agree with them.

    A regular grave (or ideally, tried and convicted for their horrible crimes against humanity) is just fine by me. And their actions may be inhuman, but I still recognize that they are people.

    I'm also in full support of anyone who responds to ICE's violence with violence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not advocating pacifism. I'm advocating for the rule of law.

    if you are attacked then defend yourself.

    but if you are not then punish intolerance, hated, and fascism work legal consequences that are proportional to (but greater than) the offense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    if you are attacked then defend yourself.

    I mean, yes. But also: If your spouse is beating you, then starting fistfights with them to "defend yourself" is not the answer.

    The issue with using violence against a violence-using government isn't that it's "wrong" to defend yourself. It is not. The issue with using violence against a violence-using government is that in most cases (certainly in this one) they can play that game better.

    As soon as it is street battles between ICE and the protestors, it starts to fit a template that they understand how to rock with. That is why they are constantly trying to instigate violent confrontations. It's why cops plant agitators in protests. The central thing that props up a tyranny is cooperation from everyone else, and having a mob attack a set of uniformed representatives of the government looks wild and dangerous. It won't hurt the thugs all that much in the long run, it won't build any support from the supporters, it will galvanize people against the resistance. Having the narrative set in the exact opposite direction -- a set of lawless thugs roaming the streets attacking defenseless people -- helps build resistance. It helps people understand what the true nature is of what's happening.

    It's just a question of what is going to work to resist them. Certainly just hanging around letting yourself get beat up by the abusive spouse is not the answer. But also, starting to punch back and instigate confrontations in a circumstance and environment where they can definitely win the ensuing fistfight (and then show their own injuries to the cops so you're the one who gets arrested) is not the way either.

    It is a question of tactics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent