[Politics] Dumb People Protest and Look Dumb

[Erttheking]

I get the idea being holding up non violent protests, but I feel like the well has been poisoned. Because there?s some double standards going on with one side being much more violent, even killing the other side, and yet people are being much more critical of the side that is less violent while being fanatical and refusing to accept less than perfection from those who are often more disadvantaged and heavily scrutinized. The type of people who ignore Martin Luther King?s comment on how he can?t condem Black rioters in good faith without condemning the system that drove them to riot. I don?t see any condemnations of systems here.

Though frankly I feel like the ship has sailed and it?s too late for me to get a word in now.

 

[Saelune]

Except the Right is the violent side, and the Left still gets all the blame.

Not on this forum... (and as that is the reach of my post that is what matters)

Constantly on this forum. Most of my posts are me arguing with those who do that.

But you're just moving the goal posts anyways.

 

[Saelune]

I get the idea being holding up non violent protests, but I feel like the well has been poisoned. Because there?s some double standards going on with one side being much more violent, even killing the other side, and yet people are being much more critical of the side that is less violent while being fanatical and refusing to accept less than perfection from those who are often more disadvantaged and heavily scrutinized. The type of people who ignore Martin Luther King?s comment on how he can?t condem Black rioters in good faith without condemning the system that drove them to riot. I don?t see any condemnations of systems here.

Though frankly I feel like the ship has sailed and it?s too late for me to get a word in now.

People will look back on this time and wonder why no one actually fought back.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If we go by Hardin analogy, the founding fathers must, therefore, be pretty incompetent.

Sure, I agree.

As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

The point being, of course, that the actions of the Founding Fathers constitute a very effective use of political violence, and one which is now widely accepted, treated as necessary, and lauded as justified today.

You may get away with that kind of thing in the dark ages, but moving toward a galactic empire you need to be a little smarter than that.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

If we go by Hardin analogy, the founding fathers must, therefore, be pretty incompetent.

Sure, I agree.

As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

The point being, of course, that the actions of the Founding Fathers constitute a very effective use of political violence, and one which is now widely accepted, treated as necessary, and lauded as justified today.

You may get away with that kind of thing in the dark ages, but moving toward a galactic empire you need to be a little smarter than that.

Heh when I play Stellaris my galactic empires are so much worse. I tend to play big 'egalatarian' societies that force you to join on threat of planetary annihilation.

 

[Schadrach]

As Salvor Hardin once said "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Wait, I though YouTube was the last refuge of the incompetent. ;D

I'm pretty sure some of the incompetent consider YouTube videos to be violence, so I guess six of one, half a dozen of the other?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

If we go by Hardin analogy, the founding fathers must, therefore, be pretty incompetent.

Considering the whole thing was pretext for retaliation against revocation of land grants following the 1763 proclamation, the means were to protect colonial smuggling, and the whole thing was over war debt incurred for a war colonials started over a goddamn cow..."clown car" is about the most charitable term I could use for the "Founding Fathers".

Or would you perhaps like to discuss the tale of the sugar acts as opposed to tea acts, being they strike more directly to the heart of the matter than the former, and that there is perhaps no greater symbol of global slavery during the colonial era than molasses?

Of course, we in the states love our selective memories. Up to and including the use of intimidation, coercion, and violence against non-combatant neutrals and loyalists. And the genocidal campaign waged by the Continental Army against British-allied Native Americans, particularly the Iroquois. Or that the "revolutionary spirit" that took the South was really fear of British manumission.

Would you perhaps care to have a conversation about those ill-discussed aspects of the Revolutionary war? Or would you care to continue whitewashing the war to wax polemic about revolutionary Fabian strategies? It strikes me an awfully strange thing to do, to want to make a case colonial violence was necessary and justified, without being too keen on actually discussing what that violence was, its motivating factors, nor its full extent.