Violence is always a bad answer.
Sometimes its the least bad answer of the options available.

Reminds me of this gem

Violence may not be the answer, but it's always an answer.

"violence is not the answer" coming from the people commiting it.

That just tells me how often we fail to find the right answer and then continue going ahead like violence is the right answer. It's an indictment against us as a whole.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Isaac Asimov, Foundation

The theft from the output of one's labor under threat of starvation and death is an insidious form of violence.

It's ideal to attempt harm reduction but when all possible non violent methods have been exhausted, violence is the remaining method of harm reduction.

violence may NOT be the answer (because force is NOT the answer), but if we CAN'T settle our fight with peace, then we must reluctantly use force. seriously!

"If war never changes, then men must change."

• Ulysses, Fallout New Vegas

At some point I fear it's the only language that wasn't tried, yet.

I think reading history honestly only confirms this point. Violence is not the answer if by answer we mean the proper remedy to conflict. It’s what we’ve done, but it’s not a good idea.

The winners of wars write the history books. There are so many peaceful small wins that we don’t share enough. Violence does not have to be the answer, but we lack the imagination to believe this because we are not being taught the peaceful ways. Not even in movies and games.

Maybe since things remain the same, turning to violence as the answer is like when they only saw the bullet holes in non essential parts of the airplanes, and we're only reading books that record violent conflict

Violence is the result of us still not having all the right, or even most of the right answers, collectively. Obviously we all think we have the right answers, that's a whole other part of the problem.

History contains a lot more peaceful trade and cooperation than it does war. You know how they say "history is written by the victors"? There's truth to that, but I'm much more a fan of "history is written by those who wrote it down."

Now that sounds kind of nonsensically tautological on its face, but there are two main takeaways to this: it was only written by the people who and the means and the ability (usually rich and/or educated people which definitely has an impact on history) and they only wrote it down if it was noteworthy. So you might get some forms of record keeping when it comes to commerce, but by and large if things were uninteresting and just another day in the life then nobody would be too inclined to make a record of it.

War, by its very nature, is very disruptive and noteworthy. You can see how people would be more inclined to make a record of it, to say nothing of the literary works that it can inspire.

Fun fact:

Like the news, history tends to focus s LOT more on the worst things and the most dramatic things.

Good ideas quietly succeeding is the most important building block of human society, but it hardly ever gets a mention.

If violence was never the answer, violence wouldn't be a multi trillion dollar global industry.

The problem with violence is that it works

The truth is, in modern times revolution does not mean barricades any more. These belong to the past. The social revolution is a far different and more essential matter: it involves the reorganization of the entire life of society. You will agree that this is certainly not to be accomplished by mere fighting.

Of course, the obstacles in the path of the social reconstruction have to be removed. That is to say the means of that reconstruction must be secured by the masses. Those means are at present in the hands of government and capitalism, and these will resist every effort to deprive them of their power and possessions. That resistance will involve a fight. But remember that the fight is not the main thing, is not the object, not the revolution. It is only the preface, the preliminary to it.

It is very necessary that you get this straight. Most people have very confused notions about revolution. To them it means just fighting, smashing things, destroying. It is the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered as the work itself that you have to do. The fighting part of revolution is merely the rolling up of your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead.

What is that task?

“The destruction of the existing conditions,” you reply.

True. But conditions are not destroyed by breaking and smashing things. You can’t destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machinery in mills and factories, can you? You won’t destroy government by setting fire to the White House.

To think of revolution in terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In practical application such a conception is bound to lead to disastrous results.

When a great thinker, like the famous Anarchist Bakunin, speaks of revolution as destruction, he has in mind the ideas of authority and obedience which are to be destroyed. It is for this reason that he said that destruction means construction, for to destroy a false belief is indeed most constructive work.

But the average man, and too often even the revolutionist, thoughtlessly talks of revolution as being exclusively destructive in the physical sense of the word. That is a wrong and dangerous view. The sooner we get rid of it the better.

Revolution, and particularly the social revolution, is not destruction but construction. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized, and unless we clearly realize it, revolution will remain only destructive and thereby always a failure. Naturally revolution is accompanied by violence, but you might as well say that building a new house in place of an old one is destructive because you have first to tear down the old one. Revolution is the culminating point of a certain evolutionary process: it begins with a violent upheaval. It is the rolling up of your sleeves preparatory to starting the actual work.

Indeed, consider what the social revolution is to do, what it is to accomplish, and you will perceive that it comes not to destroy but to build.

What, really, is there to destroy?

The wealth of the rich? Nay, that is something we want the whole of society to enjoy.

The land, the fields, the coal mines, the railroads, factories, mills, and shops? These we want not to destroy but to make useful to the entire people.

The telegraphs, telephones, the means of communication and distribution — do we want to destroy them? No, we want them to serve the needs of all.

What, then, is the social revolution to destroy? It is to take over things for the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganize conditions for the public welfare.

Not to destroy is the aim of the revolution, but to reconstruct and rebuild.

It is for this that preparation is needed, because the social revolution is not the Biblical Messiah who is to accomplish his mission by simple edict or order. Revolution works with the hands and brains of men. And these have to understand the objects of the revolution so as to be able to carry them out. They will have to know what they want and how to achieve it. The way to achieve it will be pointed by the objects to be attained. For the end determines the means, just as you have to sow a particular seed to grow the thing you need.

Let us pause and consider this.

How do you imagine a revolution could be fought in these days of armored tanks, poison gas, and military planes? Do you believe that the unarmed masses and their barricades could withstand high-power artillery and bombs thrown upon them from flying machines? Could labor fight the military forces of government and capital?

It’s ridiculous on the face of it, isn’t it? And no less ridiculous is the suggestion that the workers should form their own regiments, “shock troops,” or a “red front,” as the Communist parties advise you to do. Will such proletarian bodies ever be able to stand up against the trained armies of the government and the private troops of capital? Will they have the least chance?

Such a proposition needs only to be stated to be seen in all its impossible folly. It would simply mean sending thousands of workers to certain death.

It is time to have done with this obsolete idea of revolution. Nowadays government and capital are too well organized in a military way for the workers ever to be able to cope with them. It would be criminal to attempt it, insanity even to think of it.

The strength of labor is not on the field of battle. It is in the shop, in the mine and factory. There lies its power that no army in the world can defeat, no human agency conquer.

In other words, the social revolution can take place only by means of the General Strike. The General Strike, rightly understood and thoroughly carried out, is the social revolution. Of this the British Government became aware much quicker than the workers when the General Strike was declared in England in May, 1926. “It means revolution,” the Government said, in effect, to the strike leaders. With all their armies and navies the authorities were powerless in the face of the situation. You can shoot people to death but you can’t shoot them to work. The labor leaders themselves were frightened at the thought that the General Strike actually implied revolution.

British capital and government won the strike — not by the strength of arms, but because of the lack of intelligence and courage on the part of the labor leaders and because the English workers were not prepared for the consequences of the General Strike. As a matter of fact, the idea was quite new to them. They had never before been interested in it, never studied its significance and potentialities. It is safe to say that a similar situation in France would have developed quite differently, because in that country the toilers have for years been familiar with the General Strike as a revolutionary proletarian weapon.

It is most important that we realize that the General Strike is the only possibility of social revolution. In the past the General Strike has been propagated in various countries without sufficient emphasis that its real meaning is revolution, that it is the only practical way to it. It is time for us to learn this, and when we do so the social revolution will cease to be a vague, unknown quantity. It will become an actuality, a definite method and aim, a program whose first step is the taking over of the industries by organized labor.

I understand now why you said that the social revolution means construction rather than destruction,” your friend remarks.

I am glad you do. And if you have followed me so far, you will agree that the matter of taking over the industries is not something that can be left to chance, nor can it be carried out in a haphazard manner. It can be accomplished only in a well-planned, systematic, and organized way. You alone can’t do it, nor I, nor any other man, be he worker, Ford, or the Pope of Rome. There is no man nor any body of men that can manage it except the workers themselves, for it takes the workers to operate the industries. But even the workers can’t do it unless they are organized and organized just for such an undertaking.

from Now and After by Alexander Berkman, chapters 26: Preparation and 27: Organization of Labor for the Social Revolution. Written between WW1 and 2. Available to read or download for free here.

I present to you Mohenjo Daro. The most autistic coded civilisation I've ever heard of.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WmeyjkMYqeE

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

What history book talks about all the violent uprising in the last 20 years? I ask this because of the following:

• The US military is insanely powerful and targeted
• They have huge amounts of data to know where you are. Thank you flock and doge
• They want the civilians to rise up so they can declare an emergency at voting time.

Violence is not the answer because we learned from the history books, looking for answers in the history books is akin to repeating history, which is generally seen as the incorrect answer.

Socialism has to be in here somewhere. Oh no! Oh no! NOOOOO!!!

But, all these people in power keep telling us that violence is never the answer. They would never lie to us.

Yeah I think about "our tribe is suffering a famine. Tribe over there has food" sensation then we figure out why there's shoulder high walls