Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

[Knight Of Winter]

Lol, @larrytheimp, if I were you, I'd make sure I was knowledgeable and educated enough before accusing others of being ignorant or historical revisionists. Both Gandhi and MLK were very explicit and direct about their movements not using violence as a method.

Also, all of my deplatforming arguments were directed to Kalbear and varysblackfyre and were aimed as response to points they made. I've never claimed any of what's happening here is deplatforming - and I'm not sure if you understood that. Although, truth be told, while it's not deplatforming per se, it's creating atmosphere where other side can't say anything without being told how stupid he is - and that's not far off.

Someday, larry, you may find yourself in a similar position as OP here (or maybe you won't. Maybe you prefer to be safely and securely locked in epistemological bubble with people who think just like you, eternally righteous and eternally certain of their own shared ideology. But, for the sake of argument, let's hypothetically assume that's not the case) : surrounded by people who not only think differently and genuinely consider everything you say as either stupid, or bigoted, or otherwise morally heinous in some way; although you certainly won't think that yourself. When that happens, you'll pray that they'll treat you better then you treated OP. It's very easy to be rude, condescending and dismissive when you're safely in the majority camp (as evidenced here) - someday you'll maybe learn how it looks like when you're in minority.

@DMC - while everything you said is factually correct, I think we're  thinking of a different things under the concept of "public discourse". The way i see it, discourse is not inherently meek and passive. It can be very passionate, strong and "active". It can be brave and courageous, disobedient and moralizing. It can attack and demonstrate other side's fallacies and wrongdoings. It can help you assert yourself as a moral (or legal, or scientific, whatever the context is) authority and showcase superiority of your position to the entire world. As long as you, IMO, use words (maybe words is a bit of oversimplification, better would be to use free expression of your thoughts, which can include not only words but actions) to push forwards your ideas and allow the other side opportunity to do the same: it's a civil discourse for me.



 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

As long as you, IMO, use words (maybe words is a bit of oversimplification, better would be to use free expression of your thoughts, which can include not only words but actions) to push forwards your ideas and allow the other side opportunity to do the same: it's a civil discourse for me.

Except the bolded is precisely not the point of civil disobedience in the context of Gandhi and King, or Thoreau.  The point is to say the other side is oppressing yours, and that's an unacceptable injustice.  It has nothing to do with "discourse" in any reasonable definition of the term.  Gandhi's Salt March or the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were saying the other side's "ideas" are not legitimate positions to hold for civil or public discourse.  The former literally called it non-cooperation.  It's demonstrating that debate, conversation, or any type of communication with the other side is no longer of use - there is a moral imperative for change.

[sologdin]

very explicit and direct about their movements not using violence as a method.


that may be true, but it evades the point that the broader movements in which they participated were suffused with the spectre of force. this is a problem with objectivist argument styles, incidentally--point out fascistic implications of objectivism and they quote some scripture or other for the conclusory allegation that rand hates fascism.  

 

in this connection, am recommending benjamin's critique of violence, derrida's force of law, and most importantly agamben's state of exception.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, the notion that Gandhi was involved in any civil discourse and changed people's minds because of discourse is precisely the kind of bullshit revisionism that objectivists should be especially upset about. Unless you're referring to civil discourse as 'anything that isn't active violent acts' it's a lie. Furthermore, the best part is that if you're equating the gay rights movements, civil rights and Indian independence with civil discourse, you're also happening to equate it with deplatforming, something that all three movements had used in various degrees. 

Really, the lack of intellectual vigor or understanding of history here is quite sad. 

[sologdin]

creating atmosphere where other side can't say anything without being told how stupid he is - and that's not far off.

i get this point, but, yaknow, sometimes ornery types, with spinny avatars even, might insinuate themselves into a monologic situation otherwise wherein it becomes 20 against 1 because it's kinda kickass aesthetically to take all'm'all on--and, more importantly, from an activist's perspective, that is the correct locus of intervention.  people with radically different perspectives in relation to the larger milieu gotta thicken up their skin a bit. on that point, am willing to defer to the initiator's judgment that this was an appropriate topos.  perhaps no need to draw inferences about anyone's cognition--but opening up randora's box normally summons all the furies.

[DanteGabriel]

I can't speak on the situation around Gandhi at the time, but MLK's peaceful protest did not occur in a vacuum. The Nation of Islam and Black Panthers were offering a more violent approach to gaining their civil rights, so it behooved white authorities to start coming to an accommodation with King. And of course the FBI and other elements of the white establishment were doing their damnedest to ruin and destroy King while he was preaching nonviolent protest.

[Kalbear]

55 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can't speak on the situation around Gandhi at the time, but MLK's peaceful protest did not occur in a vacuum. The Nation of Islam and Black Panthers were offering a more violent approach to gaining their civil rights, so it behooved white authorities to start coming to an accommodation with King. And of course the FBI and other elements of the white establishment were doing their damnedest to ruin and destroy King while he was preaching nonviolent protest.

Well, even with that - nonviolent protest emphatically does not equal civil discourse or an exchange of ideas. The civil rights movement was often loud, intimidating, did not care about another person's right to speak and very directly challenged racists when they were trying to disrupt - with almost precisely the same kinds of tactics that we're using today to deplatform assholes. And as you said, LBJ's choices were to deal with MLK and get something done on civil rights, or face massive riots and unrest. None of that was what you'd consider a civil discourse. 

My point was that simply having a discussion or exchange of ideas doesn't get very far even in the best circumstances, and has achieved basically fuckall in societal change. The opposite of civil discourse isn't violence. It's non-discourse. And not talking to the other side and treating them like equals has worked really, really well to affect a whole lot of change. MLK didn't win because he convinced the other side they're wrong, and clearly from our country he still hasn't. He won because he convinced LBJ that giving in to their demands was a lot better than the alternative of riots and a country torn apart.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Well, even with that - nonviolent protest emphatically does not equal civil discourse or an exchange of ideas. The civil rights movement was often loud, intimidating, did not care about another person's right to speak and very directly challenged racists when they were trying to disrupt - with almost precisely the same kinds of tactics that we're using today to deplatform assholes. And as you said, LBJ's choices were to deal with MLK and get something done on civil rights, or face massive riots and unrest. None of that was what you'd consider a civil discourse. 

My point was that simply having a discussion or exchange of ideas doesn't get very far even in the best circumstances, and has achieved basically fuckall in societal change. The opposite of civil discourse isn't violence. It's non-discourse. And not talking to the other side and treating them like equals has worked really, really well to affect a whole lot of change. MLK didn't win because he convinced the other side they're wrong, and clearly from our country he still hasn't. He won because he convinced LBJ that giving in to their demands was a lot better than the alternative of riots and a country torn apart.

I was responding to you but I didn't mean to pretend that MLK's tactics were "civil discourse" like KoW keeps advocating. I definitely endorse the difference between the toothless "civil discourse" that half-bright centrists-by-any-cost want, and "civil disobedience" like MLK used, and like current protesters use.

I brought up the violent alternatives to MLK to disabuse the Pollyanna chorus here of their notion that MLK succeeded because he was nonviolent and people just couldn't resist his eloquence. He was offering a carrot, and the Panthers and Nation of Islam were the stick.

[sologdin]

exchange of ideas doesn't get very far even in the best circumstances, and has achieved basically fuckall in societal change

ideas supplemented with force can be transformative.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, sologdin said:

exchange of ideas doesn't get very far even in the best circumstances, and has achieved basically fuckall in societal change

ideas supplemented with force can be transformative.

Yep! This is, IMO, what the 'resistance' has a problem with as far as in the US right now. Peaceful protest is impressive, but there's no stick there. What, are those millions of women going to...I don't know. Vote? That's useful, but only so far. It certainly hasn't done anything to change policy. 

The most interesting thing to be about the civil rights movement was that LBJ was a massive, unapologetic racist. He is seen as a hero because he did end up signing the Civil Rights act, but he didn't want to do that. He was given the choice - do something good, or face a whole lot of force. 

Objectivists of course know this inherently, but they somehow believe that it isn't accurate. That the capitalist denying things like basic food and shelter or being able to dictate who can run for office and who can win is somehow not force. It is by far the biggest delusion they have. 

[Seli]

On 8/30/2019 at 4:17 PM, Knight Of Winter said:

...

Taking the mike away not only doesn't solve anything, it can also be flat out counterproductive. While adherents of the "censored ideology"won't change their mind, they'll crate the allure of forbidden fruit around their ideas which will lure more than a few unsuspecting minds. You'll get the situation where many will know that "censored ideology" is supposed to be bad, but they don't know why it's bad, since they've never seen it challenged (and how could they, since it's censored). And lastly, it creates the impression of fear - that we're ought to be afraid of some ideas so it's best to preemptively shut them down, which to me signals insecurity and impotence. I'm not afraid of nazi, racist, sexist or bigoted speech - I'm more than confident in my ability to battle them with arguments. I'm also confident they won't convert me to their ideology. And while I may find their ideas disgusting or heinous, that by itself is not a good reason enough to shut them down. In fact, while they're spouting their nonsense, I don't want to complain how horrible it is that such people ever got the platform, I want to be right next to them, challenging their ideas and showing everyone how wrong they are.

...

This seems to indicate that you are not actually the target of this speech. Of course many of us are in no way directly attacked by the racists, nazis, etc, but that does not mean it makes sense to ignore the way their speech and ideology attacks and harms the intended targets. Many other people do have very good reasons to personally and directly fear the ideology behind that speech.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Seli said:

This seems to indicate that you are not actually the target of this speech. Of course many of us are in no way directly attacked by the racists, nazis, etc, but that does not mean it makes sense to ignore the way their speech and ideology attacks and harms the intended targets. Many other people do have very good reasons to personally and directly fear the ideology behind that speech.

This. 

Like, how can i, a jewish latino, even have a "civilized" conversation with someone who wants to exterminate me, that doesnt see me like someone who can even have a valid point to make. 

[Quijote Light]

48 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

This. 

Like, how can i, a jewish latino, even have a "civilized" conversation with someone who wants to exterminate me, that doesnt see me like someone who can even have a valid point to make. 

Juan Epstein, is that you?

[Conflicting Thought]

57 minutes ago, Quijote Light said:

Juan Epstein, is that you?

Wut? 

[Quijote Light]

7 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Wut? 

It’s a Welcome Back, Kotter reference. Juan was famously a Spanish Jew. Sorry, it just popped in my head and struck me as funny. 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Quijote Light said:

It’s a Welcome Back, Kotter reference. Juan was famously a Spanish Jew. Sorry, it just popped in my head and struck me as funny. 

Ooh ok, the epsteint threw me off

[Knight Of Winter]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:08 PM, DMC said:

Except the bolded is precisely not the point of civil disobedience in the context of Gandhi and King, or Thoreau.  The point is to say the other side is oppressing yours, and that's an unacceptable injustice.  It has nothing to do with "discourse" in any reasonable definition of the term.  Gandhi's Salt March or the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were saying the other side's "ideas" are not legitimate positions to hold for civil or public discourse.  The former literally called it non-cooperation.  It's demonstrating that debate, conversation, or any type of communication with the other side is no longer of use - there is a moral imperative for change.

You could maybe say that this was a discourse - but not with the opposing side, but with the public . Whole strategy seems a bit like a public courtroom - you present (with actions, behaviour, words...) your side, opposing side presents theirs, you don't engage with each other but wait for the judge (public) to bring a verdict who presented himself best.

I'm not trying to move goalposts or anything here, you presented a good point that I hadn't considered so far - so I'm thankful.
 

16 hours ago, Seli said:

This seems to indicate that you are not actually the target of this speech. Of course many of us are in no way directly attacked by the racists, nazis, etc, but that does not mean it makes sense to ignore the way their speech and ideology attacks and harms the intended targets. Many other people do have very good reasons to personally and directly fear the ideology behind that speech.

Maybe I should clarify. I'm not afraid on rational level - i don't fear that whatever they say (and I mean "say" not "do", hence "speech"), that they  will somehow win the day or carry the argument, or convert me to their side - or achieve much generally. I am afraid on emotional level - namely that, as you say, their ideology relies sometimes not only on words but on actual violence and discrimination - which is why I stop supporting their right for speech as soon as it e.g. starts advocating violence against anyone.

I'm aware that I'm separating here in theory what may be inseparable in praxis: namely the speech itself (X are bad) and sets of behaviors which can be derived or assumed from that speech (we should hurt X) - but I feel an effort must be made.

__________
And now to tackle the main dish: namely the proposition that discourse doesn't achieve much, and that force is the main ingredient of societal change. 

Force itself can be very effective in local, limited settings - putting a gun so someone's head will certainly make him obey you. But for any kind of societal, structural change, force has only ever played second fiddle to cooperation and discourse. Always and ever, in any point in human history - at no point in time was force the dominant factor in wielding power or making changes.

How can I tell? By looking at the most powerful people in human history: kings, generals, CEOs, movement leaders, presidents etc. If force was somehow the deciding factor in obtaining power (and thus the opportunity to enact change) - all of aforementioned positions would be basically a physical strength contest - new CEO's would, for example, be appointed by boxing matches, or the guy who violently murdered the former president would instantly succeed him. For all of human history, leader was not once the physically imposing guy who exerted the most force - but the guy who convinced (and by convinced I mean anything from "politely explained" to "brainwashed") most individuals, or few powerful individuals, to follow him.  If you want to obtain power - make sure you have their support. If you want to keep power, make sure you don't lose it - or failing that, make sure that your opponents can't united and coordinate with each other (that's why controlling the media comes in handy).

Even if you do plan on achieving something through force - like starting a revolution or overthrowing a government - you need a critical mass of allies and supporters who will go along with you - and you can't gain these followers and allies by force alone. Usually you need some kind of ideology that they will latch to. By contrast, using force and force alone will never get you very far.

And people get that. When one has an argument with e.g. a wife, a friend, a coworker or boss - the subtext here is not "do as I say or I'll beat you up". Even in larger settings - like class deciding on where to go on a trip, or county elections, or shareholders deciding on a new CEO - the final result is a complex mix of negotiations, barters, bribes, intimidation, blackmails or following the charismatic individuals - rather than any threat or show of force. But somehow, on a largest level - that of society - people think that threat of force is the only or best way to go.

Actually - there's a name for people who follow that maxim: terrorists. They certainly have their agenda they'd like to promote, and they certainly don't hesitate to use threat of violence (or actual violence) to back it up. So again, if their method is so good and effective - why is it that we don't cheer for them?

I'm not advocating for passivity and meekness here - and I certainly think that everyone (person or group) would do well with having a capacity for violence. For when someone violently oppresses you, you're more than right in violently pushing them back. But to view and entire history as a series of groups and factions using violence to forcibly enact changes they want upon other groups is, IMO, a gross oversimplification of human history, human civilization and human nature.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

To few things. One is how all of your examples consist of genuine nazis, racists, bigots etc. or, in case of pro-lifers: ignorants. Is there any room for people who are not morally or scientifically lacking - and still have the opposing opinion?

Is there any room for you to give an answer to the question of how vile the the ideology and rhetoric has to be before we’ allowed to make inferences upon their character? 

Oh yeah my examples have racists nazis, other types of bigots. People you’ve claimed to be a rarity(honestly they aren’t), who would have to responded to in a “civil” way and given a platform because they want to share their ideas.

Also, I’m getting “both sides are equally right” vibe with your question.

 

 

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

The second is that yes, indeed, there are a lot of bigots around the world. But even more, I think, are people who are trying to shut down others by proclaiming them bigots and thus justifying their verbal aggression. IMO, people in general are way to quick to label others as bigots when confronted with an argument or idea they don't like (or in some cases - but not here - an argument they don't like to face). 

Well fine you think that  but I’m willing guess you’re feelings on the matter has less to do with hard evidence-polls, laws, and stances from government-things I’ve cared to cite to you demonstrate the falsehood of wide spread bigotry  being a thing of the past-and instead  more taking some stories of supposedly disgenuine accusations of racism and decided such a think is as rampant problem as actual forms of bigotry. 

 

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Ok, point taken. Though I'd still ask you if you think approach you've all taken here is the best one.

I have no regrets on pointing out the absurdity of getting outraged that a guy “politely” claiming the working poor are inferiors got some less than civil responses about himself no.

Quite frankly, I find this response a perfect example of the problem I was talking about-taking more umbrage with the lack of civility in response to forms of bigotry than the bigotry being called out.

It’s a time wasting expedition that either derails the conversation(which often is the intent of the complainer) or accomplishes little more than a slight ego boost through showing you’re above it all.  

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

I'm not talking about private venue - everyone is free to invite whom he likes on his own property.

When you're talking about e.g. people you deem racists and bigots, you're not just talking about not inviting them to your conference, you're talking about completely erasing them off the realm of public discourse, because that's how morally heinous they really are.

I’m talking about them not getting a platform they are not legally or morally required.

Movie theaters do not have to host screenings about how the holocaust is fake.

Youtube does not have to host a video where the content is basically just a conspiracy theory on how Sandy-hook was some government plot.

Now if someone desires to scream in a public  park on how he x groups of people whether they be a race, sex, religion, etc, they are free to do so.

Hell If the guy manages to get a group large enough for a rally I’d be first to decry the idea of them being denied the same treatment government would give any other private group just because of their messaging.

Not giving whatever platform a person wants to share their ideas does not constitute a violation of free expression.

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

See, other people like far-righters are equally passionate and equally righteous in their worldview, and they'll have no problem using the same methods to shut you down. If your film offends them in some way, they'll shut it down (from public or private-owned cinema, in makes no matter). If you write about their primitivism in media, they'll sue and harass you. all of this has already happened where I live.

See, this is the problem-they would do this anyway regardless of whether or not their opposition.

They wont  stop just because the other side was civil in the past.

And there could be bellyaching about the hypocrisy of it but that wouldn’t accomplish anything.

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Yes, it does. And it makes me very uncomfortable. Disgusted even. But my own personal disgust of their ideas is not a good reason enough to censor them

They are not entitled to these platforms. You are not entitled to whatever large scale platform you desire regardless of your social/political messaging. That is the stance really being argued here.

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Consider every popular good idea that today's society has: gender equality, racial equality, worker's rights, democracy etc. There was a time, not so long ago, when each of these ideas were not popular and were not considered good by majority of people. And they naturally, tried to "take away the mike", hoping, just like you - that now it will be clear to all that these "viewpoints aren’t normal and overtime that becomes truer and truer. " Today we know that it didn't work out - what just flatly censoring someone or something doesn't per se mean that he, she or it are not normal. And it doesn't solve the problem, not in the least. 

Um no. I imagine most of these movements would have reeked out a lot more quicker if the mike was given to them. 

Imagine if neo-nazis in general were portrayed not as bad people but just people of differing ideas for the last IDK 40 years.

If fans of KKK were granted the ability to produce movies in theaters across the nation like they used to.

I do not believe you could honestly to say in those scenarios that they’re wouldn’t be a lot more of the public  buying into a lot more  ideals or at least see them as acceptable ideals to hold.

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

Taking the mike away not only doesn't solve anything, it can also be flat out counterproductive. 

Not really. It is effective to steading a social movement.

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

While adherents of the "censored ideology"won't change their mind, they'll crate the allure of forbidden fruit around their ideas which will lure more than a few unsuspecting minds. You'll get the situation where many will know that "censored ideology" is supposed to be bad, but they don't know why it's bad, since they've never seen it challenged (and how could they, since it's censored). And lastly, it creates the impression of fear - that we're ought to be afraid of some ideas so it's best to preemptively shut them down, which to me signals insecurity and impotence. I'm not afraid of nazi, racist, sexist or bigoted speech - I'm more than confident in my ability to battle them with arguments. I'm also confident they won't convert me to their ideology.

To the bolded-so what? You personally think you won’t buy into it so it’s no biggie? To be clear debates, really have nothing to do with true, good ideas or rationality. 

Again a lot of the most high ups in the Nazi party were genuine geniuses. 

Good ideas, good arguments, failed to get through to them as well 33% of Germany before fascists took control.

And, yeah we should fear the idea of it be ok to throw gays in cages or genocide of Jews, so long as we see such things as evil. But that shit is happening/ has happened.

You acknowledge we should be smarter in dealing with neo-nazis. Fine. Part of that is not giving them the time of day Hitler and his party got. Make their ideals intrinsically seen as grounds enough for exclusion in a lot social/private activities.

5 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I'm not afraid on rational level - i don't fear that whatever they say (and I mean "say" not "do", hence "speech"), that they  will somehow win the day or carry the argument, or convert me to their side - or achieve much generally. I am afraid on emotional level - namely that, as you say, their ideology relies sometimes not only on words but on actual violence and discrimination - which is why I stop supporting their right for speech as soon as it e.g. starts advocating violence against anyone.

No. It’s not rational to ignore history and think the other side of an issue will win out. It’s simply hubris. 

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

I don't agree here. Being told by strangers what is ethical and what isn't is not a good way of convincing anyone of anything. In-group pressure, as Kalbear suggested, might work - but it's a different pair of gloves

Then you’re basically denying  society’s entire influence on individuals. You, me, basically everyone have been compounded with moral ideals since birth. And it does leave an effect. You do not exist in an vacuum. 

On 8/30/2019 at 7:17 AM, Knight Of Winter said:

While I generally agree with your idea that we can't rely on sanctity of good ideas to carry the day (we not only need to be right, we also need to be smart about it - smarter than nazis in your example), this is a point I'd like to address. Can you correlate ostracizing white-supremacists to the decline of white supremacy movement? I could just as easily argue that diverse society is the one that did the white supremacy in. 

Meh not really. More non-whites being in society does not mean less notion of white-supremacy being natural amongst whites.

Hell the majority New York whites in the 60s were as down for white-supremacy as Southern whites generally were:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/23/how-new-york-city-became-the-capital-of-the-jim-crow-north/

And you’d have to ignore the large pockets in the US that are still segregated today.

I don’t think you could rationally say that societal exclusion does not influence how individuals in general react to things.

People are social creatures after all. They generally don’t want to be seen as a bad person because that could threaten their place in society. 

Conflating racist=bad person has lead to people to associate the two things(rightly so). 

It helps through the groups especially hurt by racism putting pressure on society to adopt this view through boycotts, deplatforming threatening the peace and political action.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I'm aware that I'm separating here in theory what may be inseparable in praxis: namely the speech itself (X are bad) and sets of behaviors which can be derived or assumed from that speech (we should hurt X) - but I feel an effort must be made.

I think what people are trying to tell you is that for some ideologies there is no separating the speech from the advocacy of violence, advocacy of violence is the speech.

6 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Force itself can be very effective in local, limited settings - putting a gun so someone's head will certainly make him obey you. But for any kind of societal, structural change, force has only ever played second fiddle to cooperation and discourse. Always and ever, in any point in human history - at no point in time was force the dominant factor in wielding power or making changes.

Always and ever? Really?

6 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And people get that. When one has an argument with e.g. a wife, a friend, a coworker or boss - the subtext here is not "do as I say or I'll beat you up". Even in larger settings - like class deciding on where to go on a trip, or county elections, or shareholders deciding on a new CEO - the final result is a complex mix of negotiations, barters, bribes, intimidation, blackmails or following the charismatic individuals - rather than any threat or show of force. But somehow, on a largest level - that of society - people think that threat of force is the only or best way to go.

I'm not sure what the difference between "intimidation" and "threat or show of force" is supposed to be here.

It seems to me you're trying to draw some very subtle differences where little exist in actuality, reflecting a rather naive view of politics and sociology. At the other end of the spectrum, I could contend that everything is pretty much done under the threat of force because rule of law in modern societies hinges on the state holding a monopoly of violence that can and will be exercised whenever an individual or a group of individuals are in violation of the law and/or the established order.

6 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Actually - there's a name for people who follow that maxim: terrorists. They certainly have their agenda they'd like to promote, and they certainly don't hesitate to use threat of violence (or actual violence) to back it up. So again, if their method is so good and effective - why is it that we don't cheer for them?

One very interesting example, because many people are labeled or described as terrorists... Until they're not. And many people do cheer for some of the milder forms of "terrorism" at least (some forms of vandalism or intimidation for instance).

[DanteGabriel]

All real social change is wrought by repeating the same stupid fucking platitudes from a high perch of principled privilege over and over again while ignoring any evidence to the contrary or, indeed, all of human fucking history. Eventually your interlocutors will tire of reading your fatuous fart-sniffing and you can declare a very civil and self-satisfied victory.