Protesters blockade Palantir offices over tech firm’s ‘totalitarian’ work with ICE
Six people were arrested in New York City in protests over the firm’s alleged work building a massive new surveillance apparatus for President Donald Trump
You're viewing a single thread.
Look, people here seem to think that I am crying over what happens to Palantir. I'm not. What concerns me is that people genuinely seem to believe that destruction of buildings is perfectly compatible with the word "peace".
If you are going to advocate for a non-peaceful act, then don't shy away from what you are doing. Claiming that what you are doing is peaceful even though it involves blowing up things seems to me like inherently lying to yourself to make yourself feel better. It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.
I know that I am probably wasting my time, it's just that so much of the hell we are going through in the U.S. is the result of people believing in stories that they tell themselves about what they are doing in order to make themselves feel better, rather than evaluating things critically, and I really wish there were less of this mentality in the world...
What is your favorite flavor of boot-leather?
RingSun, specifically the Black Coffee flavor.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way: if you think that blowing up fascist things is the right thing to do in a particular situation, then why do you care so much about whether it is a peaceful act or not?
I think that sitting in a peace circle while your friends get carted off to death camps is always the wrong thing to do.
Agreed, but if you had the option of hiding your friends, then that would probably be better than shooting at the people trying to take them away for the simple reason then you would probably get outshot, and if not then more would likely follow. If you don't have that option, though, then by all means start shooting if that is the only way to save their lives.
Applied to this situation: it would probably be better for this group to protest peacefully for as long as they can because once they start blowing up buildings then most likely martial law or something similar will be declared and they will likely lose the ability to do anything unless they can win against the military. Additionally, they would likely end up alienating the general population, so there would be few places they could go to for support.
Hiding them? How did that work out for Anne Frank?
If the people keeping her family in hiding had chosen to open fire on the Gestapo instead of keeping her family's presence a secret, then it is not clear to me how it would have resulted in her living longer than she did.
The soldiers would be dead and they could all have fled somewhere else.
If they had believed it was the best option at the very beginning, then nothing had been stopping her family from fleeing somewhere else instead of going into hiding when it would have arguably been easiest to do so.
Also, it would not be enough to wound some of the soldiers; you would have to kill all of them before they were able to kill you and then capture your friends. Nonetheless, once her family had been discovered, I acknowledge that was really the only option that had a chance of keeping them from being captured. It is one thing to say that, though, and another to actually start shooting when you are the one faced with such a decision.
three paragraphs of bullshit.
You did not have to go out of your way to admit your lack of reading comprehension, but I appreciate you for doing so anyway! 😆
i read it, its just all nonsense. this non-violent solution bullshit needs to get lost. You are part of the problem.
What "non-violent solution bullshit"? I never said that violence was never an acceptable solution (in fact, nor did I even use the word "violence"), just that it should be called what it is.
But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?
you sure fucking insinuated that it was.
Nope, that was entirely an invention on your part. Recall that my actual words were:
It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.
If, after examining it critically, you decide to go ahead, then so be it; you just shouldn't skip that step because blowing things up is kind of a big deal, even when merited.
(Believe it or not, I actually try my best to choose my words carefully in order to convey my position as clearly as possible; I cannot help the fact that people do not seem to put as much care into reading them in return.)
By I am extremely curious about how you would respond to the question in my comment, though:
But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?
I would also add that if the answer to the first question is "none", then: why not?
But they didn't blow anything up?...
They didn't, but lots of people here have wished that they (or someone else) would.
