«12. . .1,5761,5771,5781,5791,5801,5811,582. . .2,6472,648»
Post self-deleted by Outer Bele Levy Epies.
*Hisssss!* Hello everyone! I think I belong here. Correct me if I'm wrong and welcome me if I'm right.
Verdant Haven, Octopus islands, Mount Seymour, Atsvea, and 7 othersRuinenlust, Lord Dominator, Dwardossa, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Northern Wood, and Sean fiobha
Yeah, but I'm 19th in the region, and 2645th in the world, which is a 1:139 ratio, to the nearest integer. Or to express that as a decimal to six places is 0.007183.
Add 7+1+8+3, and what do you get? That's right, NINETEEN. Same position I am in the region.
Woooooooooo spoooooky.
Octopus islands, Chan island, Mount Seymour, Atsvea, and 7 othersRuinenlust, Lord Dominator, Dwardossa, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
Any active Asians living in this Forest? :)
Octopus islands, Atsvea, Shwe Tu Colony, Lord Dominator, and 6 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, Myordas, Lousykitty, and Sean fiobha
Welcome to the Forest, then!
Octopus islands, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
There's a Simpsons reference in 117.2 to Lionel Hutz's law firm, but the person speaking in that choice isn't an incompetent lawyer and is just yet another CEO of X company. Missed opportunity.
Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and 2 othersCosona, and Sean fiobha
Octopus islands, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and 5 othersCosona, Myordas, The Filippinas, Western continental divide, and Sean fiobha
I'm not sure about active ones, but you'll probably find a couple of asians in the process of sitting down on their phones, tablets and computers here. ;)
Mount Seymour, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 5 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, Myordas, Northern Wood, and Sean fiobha
Sidewalks?
I dunno. Considering the condition of my local roads, a mountain bike seems insufficient.
As to the bike trail vs. road debate, the road is by far less dangerous, in my opinion. For every one coal rolling redneck trying to run me off the road, there's at least 10 pedestrians and cyclists in giant clumps, going against traffic, squirreling around everywhere, with at least four dogs on 50 foot leashes doing the same on the "bike" trail.
WAY more dangerous than the road.
Sides which, I live in a civilized place where bicyclists, by law, have the same rights and duties as any vehicle operator. I'm taking the lane, when necessary, and everyone else gets to deal with it. ;)
This idea doesn't need to be promoted. It has been established fact since the "sovereign state" was invented way back when. One need only study history to observe that, ultimately, all ideals dissolve away and ultimately the state always acts because it has the violent might to do so.
In the face of such fact, disarming the citizen is actually complicity with the said fact. Especially in states where the state's murdering citizens in their own homes is the norm, or becoming so.
Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and 1 otherSean fiobha
Post self-deleted by Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners.
Post self-deleted by Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners.
Well... in HK protestors have just started using bombs against the police. Bombs or guns, what we're looking at here is violent rebellion with the intent to cause injury against the agents of the state.
Broadly, do you see this as a positive or negative development?
To me, its a negative development. This plays into the Chinese government's chosen narrative of depicting them as terrorists, and make it easier for China to justify an excessively brutal response, which is something they might have feared to do out of concern for international reputation and fear of trade sanctions and the like. It's a lot easier to move against bombers then it is to move against peaceful protests.
Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and 5 othersCosona, Myordas, Kinectia, Qawe, and Sean fiobha
That the state in question provides no other effective means for the people to redress the greviances is tragic. People don't resort to violence merely to be violent (thus the state's spin on things is nonsense and may be discarded, but we knew that to begin with). They resort to it when all other measures are defeated or unavailable.
If the state doesn't want violence, it should disavow it and provide other means. If it fails to do so, well, it made its own bed.
At any rate, it is probably easy to insist on peaceful protest from the relative safety of a place where such is still somewhat effective.
Cameroi, Alpenburg, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, and 6 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, Kekistan, Kinectia, and Sean fiobha
Definitely negative. Any escalation of violence is negative.
Mount Seymour, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
I'd say it's a positive development in some ways, negative in others.
Clearly, the Chinese government doesn't give a flyin' frick about democracy or whatever the protesters are saying.
I hope that was a joke..
Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and 2 othersCosona, and Sean fiobha
The CCP's position is a joke, including it's need to escalate violence by providing no other effective means of recourse for the people of Hong Kong. That is certainly a negative development.
That the people of Hong Kong are taking the only route forced upon them, however, is necessary, if tragic. Of course, the CCP may renounce violence and act accordingly at any time.
And I would hope that no one would seriously hold the people responsible for the escalation of violence, as that would be victim blaming of the most perverse sort.
Alpenburg, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
might does not make right. the only right made by two wrongs is a political right wing.
might makes dominance, and that invariably temporary, though that temporary my be longer then one life.
the state earns its keep by making itself useful to everyone. when it refuses to, even when it is the will of the people that it refuse to,
it no longer has any good reason to exist.
this does not mean hierarchies can be permanently removed by attacking them either. nor that it is universally beneficial to take the approach of doing so. this may be obvious and i only mention for completeness.
the state fills a vacuum created by the absence of universally mutual consideration. need i mention such a vacuum need not be created?
social organization is itself useful in one context and that is because infrastructure is beyond the means of single individuals,
and most people prefer the comfort and convenience of at least some infrastructure existing.
again though, unless this serves everyone, then it is of no value save to those it does.
the state need not take a biased nor discriminatory form. when it does, this again is self defeating to the only justification for its existence.
resistance in never futile, for the existence of the state, depends upon the acceptance of that existence,
at least by some sufficient number who are benefited by it.
the only infrastructure it benefits resistance to undermine and destroy, is the mechanism of political power, when this has proven itself, more harm the good. this can happen in any ideology, to which none are immune.
Atsvea, Shwe Tu Colony, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 5 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, Listervia, Kekistan, and Sean fiobha
I know it's not much compatible with their culture, but I wish the Tibetans would use this as an opportunity to start their own revolution as well. The PRC has used and abused Tibet for too long, from attempting to appoint the next Dalai Lama to torturing Tibetan monks, notably Palden Gyatso.
The People's Republic of China has made it clear that they're okay with sacrificing their people's freedom in order to broaden their scope of control, so a free world should be ready to sacrifice the Chinese government as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Dwardossa, Turbeaux, and 2 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, and Sean fiobha
Why do you say that? A preference for nonviolent resistance certainly seems like a valid position. It has proven to be a powerful force many times in history. It can be difficult to counter, without the opposition coming away looking awful, and allows the protestors to firmly hold the moral high ground. Just look at the Civil Rights Movement in the US, and the Indian Independence Movement which influenced it.
Drasnia, Atsvea, Shwe Tu Colony, Lord Dominator, and 3 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, and Sean fiobha
Yes, but only violent revolutions are successful unfortunately. People will talk about Martin Luther King as a counter example but forget his case was bolstered in two ways: Malcom X basically played bad cop while King played good cop but white people want to say thats how everything needs to be not recognizing that Malcom X did most of the heavy lifting. Also, he died and as a martyr that solidifies a lot of things.
Alpenburg, Octopus islands, Atsvea, Shwe Tu Colony, and 5 othersLord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
Is Asian-American enough
Octopus islands, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Myordas, and Sean fiobha
The CCP had the low ground, and the protestors the high, before hostilities even began. The protesters retain the high ground by virtue of being forced to use the means necessary by an illegitimate state. Violence, in and of itself, is not the deciding factor and continuing to treat it as such runs the danger of excusing the state's violence by holding the victims of the state to the "higher standard."
Non-violence as a "higher standard" necessarily implies that the state and it's citizens control equal means of access to power, and thus equal means of access to alternatives. This is not (and has never) been the case. As a result, the "higher standard" is one where the proverbial school yard bully gets to beat his victim in the face, exclaiming "if only you'd just give me your lunch money, I wouldn't have to beat you! Why do you make me do this? What's wrong with you?"
And then, per the "higher standard" when the bully gets hit in the nose, he goes crying to teacher decrying the "violence."
I was just going to note the irony of how (white) people in the US like to celebrate the use of violence by (white) people in 1776, while condemning violence and preaching about the "higher ground" when Malcom X is the topic of discussion.
Given that law enforcement in at least one US state is developing (rediscovering?) a taste for murdering people of color in their own homes, I'm thinking puerile liberal hand wringing needs to take a back seat for a while. Bring me more Malcom X / 1776.
Alpenburg, Atsvea, Shwe Tu Colony, Lord Dominator, and 5 othersTurbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, Western continental divide, and Sean fiobha
Post self-deleted by Autonomous cleaner bot cleaners.
Well, first I'll just point out that I was responding to the incredulous response Nazi Flower Power got when she said "Any escalation of violence is negative." I don't see anything wrong with the position that you would not wish to see any more violence. In fact, you could say it is noble.
Now, it may not be the most politically expedient position. The Civil Rights Movement lasted more than a decade. And the Indian Independence Movement much longer than that. The Hong Kong protests have been going on just a matter of months. If you're going to go the Nonviolent route, you've got to be in it for the long haul.
Personally, I support the protestors and feel their actions to be justified. But I don't think someone asserting that "violence is negative" is the same as someone taking the CCP position that the protestors are violent thugs that need to be put down.
I don't quite follow your statement that "Non-violence as a "higher standard" necessarily implies that the state and it's citizens control equal means of access to power, and thus equal means of access to alternatives." When has this ever been the status of a nonviolent resistance movement? I'm no expert in such matters, but it seems to me that it is utilized in cases where there are large disparities in the access to power.
As for your comment on Americans' views regarding 1776 and Malcolm X, I do agree there is often quite a bit of hypocrisy there. I mean, the American Revolution isn't even a good comparison for these types of protests. There was no grand moral injustice being perpetrated by the British. Just a desire by the colonists to live under a different political system. The situation of Black Americans in the 50s and 60s was a whole other animal.
Even so, the situation in the US today is much more amenable to real civil change than that under Chinese rule. The potential for a nonviolent solution to the plight of Black Americans is still very much possible (though it decreases with each passing year). I know I would prefer that over a return to 1968 and bombs in the streets and assassinations.
Alpenburg, Mount Seymour, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, and 3 othersOuter Bele Levy Epies, Cosona, and Sean fiobha
I think an extreme position of saying that violence is NEVER justified is indeed hard to defend. However, I'd certainly say that violence seems like a good answer more often than it truly is, and that it often remains the visceral, common-sense, feels-right option that often causes more harm in the long run.
When it comes to HK protesters targeting a police car with a homemade bomb, or arming drones with petrol and acid bombs, or pulling a taxi driver out of his car and beating him while stamping on his face as a crowd... well these things have what -- as politicians are fond of saying -- bad optics.
For sure, there's a context here. There's police brutality, rubber bullets fired at point blank range, misinformation campaigns smearing the protestors as child abusers, and the possibility that said taxi driver ploughed into the crowd of protesters not by accident but because he was paid to by the government.
However, to those NOT on the frontline, and who do NOT have access to the secret meetings of those in charge of either side, the default position was that we were strongly on the side of peaceful pro-democracy protestors because they were peaceful, and they were pro-democracy. Protestors then engaging in the sort of actions we associate with terrorism... that sort of thing can erode public support pretty damn quickly.
If even a hippie left-wing liberal westernised democracy advocate like myself can start thinking they've gone too far, then imagine what the average neutral conservative or status quo supporter thinks. To them, the protestors have gone from being people who they might disagree with but are willing to listen to, into terrorists who attack policemen and who need to be put down.
In fact, the cynic in me asks "cui bono?" and this suspects that the most violent elements of the protests are likely to be the ones in China's pocket.
That's the truth of modern warfare - it's not a battle of guns or bombs, it's a battle of ideas. Beat up a single cop, and you can claim to have won the skirmish. Control the narrative, and you win the war.
Now to me, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, great men for sure, full of fire. But you know the words that changed the nation? The quiet resistance that the world turned on?
"I don't think I should have to stand up."
Now that's courage.
Alpenburg, Chan island, Mount Seymour, Atsvea, and 5 othersLord Dominator, Turbeaux, Outer Bele Levy Epies, Northern Wood, and Sean fiobha
«12. . .1,5761,5771,5781,5791,5801,5811,582. . .2,6472,648»
Advertisement
