• 2 Posts
  • 251 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 31st, 2023

help-circle


  • That sounds nuts but having been there I wouldn’t be terribly surprised. I think the crazy part is (living in a bible belt rural city surrounded by pro-car everything and the various internet fearmongers) how mundane it all feels even at it’s peaks. Just a bunch of fucking people getting where they’re going. I’ve never understood the allure of sitting in gridlock for over an hour over just sharing space with a bunch of other boring normal assholes for 30 minutes (or whatever.)

    My best friends are very pro car and liberal in that “sure better public transit is needed but ‘I’d’ never use it it doesn’t work for me cause XYZ” sorta way. I dragged them on an amtrak to DC, and took em on the subway up to our hotel and they’re just like “…oh that was chill.” Yeah, just fuckin people getting where they’re going it’s not a bath salt zombie apocalypse down here.













  • This is the way I’ve come to look at it: non-violence is ideal, but non-violence is one of many “languages.” (Obviously here we’re just talking about violence, but yknow some is political, some is social, etc.) Some people can speak many of these, some people only speak one or refuse to use others (like how you say you will only use nonviolence.)

    The issue is that some people only speak one language, and aren’t going to “understand” (be persuaded or moved by) others no matter what. A bigot only understands hate and emotion so they aren’t going to be swayed from that position by logic or facts because they don’t “speak” that language.

    What I’m getting at, is that for people who only speak violence - non-violence doesn’t mean anything to them except an easy target. They aren’t going to consider your viewpoint because you won’t fight back, they won’t back down because “clearly you aren’t a threat.” They’re going to violence until they reach their ends. With somebody like that, you have to “speak their language.”

    Of course on an individual level you (maybe) can get the police to handle it, but on a social level like dealing with nazis you have to keep them scared of return violence. They are violent by nature (the entire ideology is elimination of undesirables) and should be treated as such. Let them know that we punch nazis. Let them know they aren’t the only ones with guns and unlike most of them we go to the range. Let them know if they wear iron crosses and shit they’re getting kicked the fuck out. Fuck them, and let them know we’d be happy to fuck em up if they want to give us the opportunity.

    I’m generally anti-violence myself, but I’m also a large guy so I’m lucky enough to be able to avoid it. I can’t bring myself to be a pacifist though. Knocking some kid around is easy come take a swing at me and see how it goes. Shrug


  • Maybe I missed it being mentioned elsewhere, but I think the writeup I’m familiar fits well with this angle of the discussion. Basically, it says tolerance is a social contract that we’re all born into and protected by so long as we uphold our part of the contract (by being tolerant.) If you are intolerant then you break that contract and are no longer protected by it, therefore making intolerance toward you acceptable and not a breach of the contract for others.

    (Also, I agree that religions/race/etc are invalid for judging somebody’s tolerance)




  • I’m in DC and NYC a lot, and the places I stay are almost always pretty quiet areas (cause I’m not staying in the hotbed touristy/party-y areas)

    Even in cities, most people have average boring 9 to 5 jobs and need to sleep at night. When you get away from those particular areas (of course Times Square isnt indicative of the “norm,” right?) its all pretty mundane actually.