I always respect resistence in essence. Might be other aspects of people's actions and ideologies I don't respect.
The BLM rallies were a good example. I'm into being very open about one's distaste for the State, but I very much disagreed with many of the tactics and politics of the majority of those events.
The key tactical point was demonstrating an irrevocable critical mass of resistance which could not be crushed by force. The conflict between us protesters and people like you was driven by the fact that you didn't recognize this core point, overriding everyone's disagreements over political minutiae and bringing us together over the simple fact that we wouldn't allow each previous protest to be broken up by police violence without the next protest having more people and being more of a problem. The only way out was to convict a cop of a murder committed on duty. Otherwise people were going to be exercising their first amendment rights to express dissatisfaction with a police force unilaterally free to commit murder without consequences. Even people who want cops to be murderers should be able to wrap their heads around the fact that free speech forces itself on the world as a result of democracy and the human drive for expression. When you say you disagreed with the tactics without recognizing the core tactic of showing free speech couldn't be prevented, it's like you think free speech only worked because the protesters got lucky and you don't actually agree with the idea that free speech is an emergent property of human nature that you can't stop no matter how you feel about it.
I mean, you have to remember the simple fact politicians did that thing they do sometimes where they're like "people are so angry they're fighting with cops in the streets, maybe if we keep escalating it will calm them down."
History and dictionaries show that escalating fights with people who vastly outnumber you might not be the way to calm them down when they're angry.
It's insane to deny that tactical truth.
You said:
> "the only way out was [Statism working 'properly' for MY cause]"
That's part of the problem.
The anti BLM folks were saying "the State (in the form of the police) should do the thing I want! (By crushing protests)".
The pro BLM folks were saying "the State (in the form of the courts) should do the thing I want! (By convicting)".
The former tramples on free speech, the latter tramples on due process, but both of those concerns are only valid through a Statist lens anyway. I'm talking about a paradigm shift. Where both of those strategies and concerns are made irrelevant.
The zero-sum rivalrousness of those two positions hinges on the fact that they each want The State to do vaguely contradictory things. And they each want to wield "power in numbers" to convince the State to do their thing.
It's just recapitulating the tyranny of democracy in a different venue.
I and many other protestors would have preferred the state keep escalating and get overthrown tbh
The state's actions are outside my control though, what I cared about was upholding free speech by being yet another person added into the number of protestors after police violence tried to quiet the anger at state actions
I oppose violent revolution and "overthrow".
Violence in general.
What do you think of Abe Lincoln? I say if he lived forever he might regret being so brutal and believe there were lives that could have been saved, but he fought a fight that did need to be fought
I'm generally not a fan of statists or waging wars of aggression.
I'm also against slavery because it's coercion/aggression.
Those two things can exist at the same time. I don't have to be pro-war just because I'm anti-slavery.
I'm anti-war too, generally, but wasn't Lincoln probably too?
My point is, you can recognize times where violence is needed. But I highly respect how strong your instinct is to avoid it and protect people
Violence is absolutely warranted for **defense** of one's bodily autonomy and intended use of legitimately-acquired property in response to the unintended interference of the same by others. (Where "interference" means your use would preclude mine. You can think about my stuff all you want, since that doesn't preclude my use or access). My position is that this is the only time violence is warranted.
Ideally the minimum amount of force to prevent the unintended interference would be used.
Some people would say the problem with being extremely strict like this is that it prohibits "wars of liberation" and other Fun With Democracy abroad and domestic 😆
You may want to try telling that to the WW1 vets who were protesting not getting what they were promised... Gather in large enough numbers & opposing you with overwhelming force is suddenly economically viable.
I'm not understanding what you mean, but if I got a chance to talk to a WW2 vet, I probably wouldn't waste their time with my opinions other than suggesting they join nostr
Meant to say WW1 vet but same applies
Then you never heard of their protest and how it ended I'm guessing.
Let's just say they were facing machine guns & tanks again, only this time they had their families besides them.
They didn't "win"...
That's very sad but I'm still not quite sure what you're telling me
That if you do stupid things in stupid places with stupid people you are going to come unstuck real fast.
And you are probably being manipulated into it...
I’m not advocating for anything. Just making an observation. If you engage in non peaceful behavior as a form of protest you better be ready to be violent because when it’s time to be violent it’s time to be violent. Also the second you start to show violence towards people, and their property, that were neutral in the conflict you increase the likelihood of not liking how they choose to enter the conflict. Take the BLM stuff. Are there problems with policing in America that need to be fixed? Absolutely. Does that take burning down a police station or three maybe with the cops inside? Maybe. You burn down private property you just lost me and millions of other people. Why? I got property and it’s real easy to picture that happening here. I also start to think about whether or not I’d engage in certain behavior against those people if I caught them in the act. From 5-600 yards away. It didn’t by the way, the BLM protest by me consisted of people walking down the sidewalk carrying signs with local businesses staging bottled water for them and a couple of restaurants setting up grills in their parking lots and cooking for them. On an unrelated note, it’s legal to drive around with a loaded handgun in your glove box or center console here. No permit needed and most of the population does.
You basically openly admit your opinions are based on selfishness and greed ("I own property" - so you think, hooray for you) so I didn't really read your post
Can you phrase your point in a quicker to read way?
