• RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One side is gonna lose in the end. That is all that matters. The world is ruled with violence. Non-violence only is beneficial to those currently in power.

    Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence. How are you going to preserve yourself when you let people run around who want to opress or kill you?

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      One side is gonna lose in the end.

      And there are plenty of times where this is done non violently.

      Basic self-preservation as you put it requires violence.

      Yes. As a last resort. That doesn’t mean never using violence. It means using it for self preservation, not just because you disagree with them.

      • RedPandaRaider@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a last resort is too late. If you can use violence successfully, it justifies itself. Waiting for when it’s time for the last resort is too late. You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power. The same applies to any political movement.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not going to stop the nazis in the spring of 1933, you would have needed to kill them in the 20s, a decade before they came to power.

          Except such thinking was how we got the Nazis in the first place. Hitler co-opted unions and parties who were extremised by such responses, and these were the basis of the Nazi party.