The 87-year-old whose eviction sparked a domestic crisis and triggered nationwide anti-government protests has died in hospital late on Wednesday. Protesters say they will continue to demonstrate to uphold her legacy.
The 87-year-old whose eviction sparked a domestic crisis and triggered nationwide anti-government protests has died in hospital late on Wednesday. Protesters say they will continue to demonstrate to uphold her legacy.
Now she’s an unwilling martyr to boot. Not a good sign for the parties that denied cooperation in enacting protective legislation, good for society at large because the blame goes to the far right and the conservatives.
Yep lets make statutes of this lady when this is done. They should burn down the leaders houses and cause them as much stress as humanity possible. Because they murder that poor woman. What about the landlord who just wanted to push her out so he can charge more rent? He should be dragged into the street over this.
Ok, i would rather prefer some swift legislation to prevent this from ever happening again and legal proceedings against those responsible (which would be hard to get a sentence for - i don’t think they actually broke any laws, and making new laws and sentencing people after the fact is something we all don’t want, i assure you of that).
But if that doesn’t happen, i’m down with your solution too.
Every successful movement has had two wings. A reasonable, non-violent, and thoughtful wing that offers peaceful solutions, and a militant wing that’s prepared to use less gentle means to demand change. Sin Fein would not have accomplished much without the IRA. Martin Luther King Jr. would have struggled to get concessions if Malcolm X and the Black Panthers didn’t exist. Mandela, Gandhi, all of them exist in juxtaposition with a less restrained movement that we tend to minimize in the history books, because the powers that be don’t approve of people knowing how the real sausage of political change works.
You want a peaceful resolution? Good! You are welcome and needed. But don’t disparage the radical wing. Understand they too want justice. They are a necessary part of the movement as well. They are the implicit “Or Else” at the end of every call for justice.
This is why nonviolence is violence too. Nonviolent movements require their violent counterparts to put pressure on states.
And also, if a movement manages to get a reform passed, it is dependent on the state’s monopoly on violence to get it enforced. Don’t forget that the National Guard had to be deployed to actually desegregate schools in the South.
There is no such thing as a successful non-violent movement, and anyone who demands non-violence is carrying water for the oppressors.
I agree on that! But i refuse the way of thinking that the threat of violence has to be the first line of defense or offense.
Yeah sure, violence should not be the first thing you try. But it’s more effective if you are perceived as being capable of violence when you are standing up to oppressors who are doing violence to you.
It’s also effective if i am capable of unleashing a biological agent on my adversaries. Should that be the standard? Because that is very easily achieved these days with everything you can buy from a supermarket, see bacillus cereus as an easy example - cook some rice, let it stand at 27°C for a few days and distribute it to your enemies. That’s one of the nice examples that (probably) wont kill your enemies.
The threat of violence - which is fucking easy even for single individuals nowadays if they want to - should NOT be the primary reason to engage in diplomacy.
I think you’re misconstruing what I’m trying to say. This article says it much better: https://www.grassrootsthinking.com/nonviolence-is-violence-too-somebodys-gotta-die/
As i said, i am down with @[email protected] 's solution if a peaceful way is not found. Don’t paint me as disparaging because i prefer talking before shooting. Any movement that prefers shooting over talking has to be shunned from the start, because it will only beget more violence even when the opposition might be ok with talks to come to a solution. All of your examples were on the side of “talking first”.
Edit: Anyone downvoting this is advocating for hurting people before discussing things. I am astounded that we have people thinking like this here.
No, it doesn’t. Without them, your talk is just noise, easily dismissed. It’s absolutely necessary for some to follow their conscience and keep their hands clean, but if no one is getting their hands dirty then it doesn’t achieve anything.
They were. But they always made sure to qualify their denouncements of violence with an understanding of the righteous rage of the more aggressive activities of the less restrained wing. Centre the motivations, not the actions.
You represent one part of a bigger whole. Both parts are necessary. Neither by itself is sufficient.
Anyone starting to shoot before talking is just a fucking terrorist and not someone you can negotiate with. Another Edit: this is true regardless of which side we are talking about.
You are sullying the sacrifices of the people who were deeply committed to put talks before violence with your utterances. There are many things you can achieve before killing your opposition, even when you do not have to means to do that at all.
I agree that resisting violently is needed in some cases. But preferring the violent case over the diplomatic one is the way you get long-term guerilla warfare and countless civilian victims that do not deserve to be wound up in your “righteous crusade”.
Diplomatic measures should ALWAYS be the first line of defense and offense. If everything else fails, go ahead and set the barricades on fire. But if you advocate towards violence before the civil way of doing things is exhausted, you are no better than any of those bastards people are fighting against.
Edit: I also want to emphasize that getting ready for a violent confrontation is not something i want to discourage. But the important discriminating factor is which of your cards you keep playing the most, and when you play them. Just playing the “violence” card is not better than anything the nazis have done.
2nd Edit: Really? The violent cowards downvoting me better give me some good reason why shooting first is the way to go.
In general, almost no one starts shooting without trying to talk first. The difference between you and the guy who is “rushing” to more extreme measures, is usually that their experience has left them far more cynical about the chances of talk achieving anything without actions to back it up. Every cynic is ultimately a disillusioned idealist who has seen too many failures of discourse to produce results. There’s a difference between a psychopath who engages in violence for the thrill of it, and someone who has reached the end of their patience while people die around them. There is no matter in which you are either the first or the last word on, and you are disrespecting everyone who has been in the fight for these causes before you could string two coherent words together. Today’s battles are just the latest front of a war that is older than living memory.
Throwing the “T” word around is just a rhetorical, thought terminating cliche at this point. When states are charging people with “Terrorism” for possessing reading material, that word has lost all meaning. Using the phrase “Department of War” is a terrorist act. The existence of a military and the implicit threat of force is a terrorist act. My breakfast preferences are almost certainly terrorism for some people. When everyone is a terrorist, no one is.
I agree that the difference is mainly one of how much hope someone has. I still believe in the capability of most humans to come to a favorable solution when stakes are high.
I also insist on exactly this view being the most important thing to prevent atrocities, unneeded violence, and long-term conflicts with a bunch of civilian victims caught in the crossfire.
A Terrorist in my view is someone who resorts to violence when other venues of reaching goals are realistically open. For example, i would not consider Hamas an terrorist organization - Palestinians do not have any recourse left outside of violently resisting.
But for renting Spaniards, there are a lot of political and diplomatic pathways still available that have not been used for now! The legislation that did not go through because of the (fucking) separatists and conservatives will be simply pushed through in the temporary administration before the next votes, and these parties will get their receipt for shitting on the needs of the common people.
Someone advocating for violence in this situation is a fucking r* (my foreign language mind does currently not provide me with a similarily powerful word that would fit the bill, you are welcome to supply me some, thanks in advance), because it will turn the public opinion against the interests of the common people, and on top of that people that do not deserve that will get hurt (and yes, that even includes cops, even if i despise them)
Using the term Terrorist is only a though terminating cliche if you use US standards.
you think the talking hasn’t been started yet? you think we don’t see all this talk and know it changed nothing? there has not been a “starting to shoot before talking”. time is running out, and now it’s time to make listening much more appealing then it obviously is now.
The talking has started, and the first vote did not get the needed result. Now they are heading into a re-election, and the administration during this period will push that legislation through without even needing the votes of the right/conservative parties if you followed the news enough. Just because the first round of negotiations does not give you the result you want, there is no need for starting violence against your political adversaries.
In fact, your thinking would be well placed in the Kremlin or similarily undemocratic institutions. Go fuck yourself. I do not converse with authoritarian fucks.