If you genuinely want the world around you to change, if it's actually a high priority for you, you'll almost always be playing with fire; any approach you take - any ideology you reach for to provide you with a path - will have been used by people willing to use violence.
Conversation
Replying to
If you genuinely don't want the world around you to change, if it's actually a high priority for you, you'll almost always be playing with fire; any approach you take - any ideology you reach for to provide you with a path - will have been used by people willing to use violence.
1
1
Replying to
This is something I am trying to get my head around; those comfortable people who are offended by even the idea of violence, are they ignoring the processes that brought about the stability from which they benefit? Or are they actively complicit, stealthily continuing the fight?
1
1
Replying to
Bit of both, I guess.
For instance, litigious people are essentially employing the state in a mercenary capacity. What they feel they're doing is pretty irrelevant.
Replying to
In terms of the end effect it's irrelevant, but in terms of persuading people to get on board, do the "the left and right are just as bad" types realise that they're sittings on a hill made of violence, too?
1
Otherwise, the rhetoric of the Right, which tends to ignore or completely forgive state violence, sounds much more appealing than those nasty-sounding revolutionary types on the Left.