political violence (5 Viewers)

[Wilbert]

Dictionary definitions don't really have any place in a discussion like this. Here's one for you, friend of mine takes an axe and smashes the nosecone of a us military plane down in shannon. He's a christian and writes up the action as non-violent direct action. Can you non-violently smash up a plane?

Fucking Christians!
"Take that, inanimate object! I smite thee!"

 

[snakybus]

is he the guy from Mayo with the dreadlocks?

mad looking fucker

 

[Wilbert]

is he the guy from Mayo with the dreadlocks?

mad looking fucker

A christian with dreadlocks? Conclusive proof that there is no God!

 

[snakybus]

you got that right, "Wil"

 

[mazzyianne]

This is what I meant about property destruction vs violence. From the definition there it would seem violence doesn't have to involve any impact on a person or animal or whatever. Inanimate objects don't count.
I reckon the definition is wrong and I'm right

And he's not from Mayo he's Australian and is not just christian but Catholic

 

[taubstumm]

is he the guy from Mayo with the dreadlocks?

mad looking fucker

i saw him getting on the bus once a couple of years ago. he sat down and gave his voluminous dreadlocks a flick with his hand, so that they weren't covering his face. one of them arced gracefully through the air and over the back of the seat, and the end of it landed quite neatly in the lap of the girl who was sitting behind him. she took one glance down at it and then her face contorted into an hilarious "eeeeuuuwwwww, grooooossssssss" look. she stood up and moved to the other end of the bus.

i think we can conclude from this that violence is for wimps and posers, and whoever started this thread is probably a poof.

 

[Squiggle]

i saw him getting on the bus once a couple of years ago. he sat down and gave his voluminous dreadlocks a flick with his hand, so that they weren't covering his face. one of them arced gracefully through the air and over the back of the seat, and the end of it landed quite neatly in the lap of the girl who was sitting behind him. she took one glance down at it and then her face contorted into an hilarious "eeeeuuuwwwww, grooooossssssss" look. she stood up and moved to the other end of the bus.

i think we can conclude from this that violence is for wimps and posers, and whoever started this thread is probably a poof.

Talk about coming out in style!!!

 

[W.]

Can we conclude that the act of destroying a plane can be non-violent then? From there I wonder if smashing windows or burning barricades are violent, is it the nature of the event in which "violence" takes place that defines it as such?

 

[Squiggle]

Well, destroying a plane is an act of vandalism.

That's where my reasoning gets fuzzy.

In general I am totally against, but where I support the cause of the vandals and the victim is a percieved enemy, then I would tend to feel sympathetic towards the act.

 

[W.]

Even the criminal damage act has a clause allowing for right on property destruction,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA31Y1991S6.html

• ( c ) if he damaged or threatened to damage the property in question or, in the case of an offence under section 4, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to damage it, in order to protect himself or another or property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another and, at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence, he believed

• • (i) that he or that other or the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection, and

• • (ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

 

[broken arm]

Well, destroying a plane is an act of vandalism.

That's where my reasoning gets fuzzy.

the first time i remember someone damaging a plane was back in 1996 when 4 women broke into an RAF base in the UK and with hammers damaged a Hawk Jet fighter that was being exported to Indonesia. They were cleared by the jury on the grounds that they committed the act to further prevent the genocide of the east timorese people.

not so much vandalism as inspiration.

 

[seaners]

Do anarchists have a problem with morality? I have a problem with morality. I am an anarchist. Draw your own labels.
If enough people call something violent then does by common usage it become violent? I have a problem with this type of ahem! moralising that draws distinctions between people smashing windows and people smashing cops because it tries to divide the ranks up into good and bad protesters (usually not intentionally) likewise with the peaceful protester versus hooligan element style of division created by liberal commentators. Smashing the windows of a Macdonalds while there are families inside it eating and scaring the shite out of them but not harming them might well be more violent than shoving your friend because he’s being a drunken dick. I don’t see any point in trying to define certain actions that are construed as violent by a large number of people as anything else, I find it a lot more productive (destructive?) to argue as to why a certain action was taken.

 

[egg_]

Do anarchists have a problem with morality? I have a problem with morality. I am an anarchist. Draw your own labels.

Touché, seaners
What exactly is your problem with morality?

 

[seaners]

As i define it, morality being a way of thinking that defines things into right and wrong. It almost always results in a set of rules for action based upon this precept. I don't like rules they're silly. There is no room for fluidity, for changing your mind whenever the hell you feel like it, for taking different routes from similar situations, for spontaneity for joy. Yeah I know i'm exaggerating, but if you draw up a list of things that are right and wrong it means you can just consult the list and the rulebook every time ou have to make a decision rather than thinking for yourself all the time. Most people who follow moral codes have them imposed either willingly or not by outside authorities. I don't like authorities. They too are poo. Others may well decide upon their own ideas of right and wrong which is a big step in the right direction but when you have a already decided what your opinion is on something how are you ever going to form a new one? imho this is why we end up with debates where people entrenched in their own self-righteousness throw insults at eah other in an attempt to boost their own self esteem and convince as many people as possible of their own rightness, as opposed to discussions where a group of individuals come together with an open mind to consider various options to various problems or questions. Feel free to define other words however you want. Morality leads to ideology. Ideology is pants. Anything i say may be revoked at any given moment, and reinstated whenever the hell i feel like it. i can be frustrating to debate with :heart:

 

[aoboa]

To further complicate the matter.
Vandalism can be psychological violence.

 

[snakybus]

it's nice to see honesty in an anarchist seaners

though I notice you follow all the rules of punctuation and spelling

some anarchist you are

 

[Wilbert]

Yeah, Seaners. The Man has you right where he wants you.

 

[snakybus]

I bet he wears a tie and all, eh? And sends Christmas cards.

 

[Wilbert]

Probably gets on with his parents too. I bet he did ask to be born!
Worst. Anarchist. Ever.

 

[egg_]

As i define it, morality being a way of thinking that defines things into right and wrong

Hmmm I see where you're coming from , but I'm inclined to think of morality as being a sort of framework that lets you figure out what's ok and what's not ok. Maybe that's ethics though. Or maybe I'm assuming that other people think like I do, which they most often don't

Hmm anyway what I'm trying to say is I doubt anyone in this discussion is consulting a rulebook, more likely they're consulting their own personal ethical frameworks and trying to work out if they think political violence is ok or not, and then discussing their conclusions to see if they hold up.

If fact I'd say this discussion is one of those where

a group of individuals come together with an open mind to consider various options to various problems or questions

The fact we can't agree on what political violence is is confusing things a little though