yeah, it's interesting how we're not allowed to call for violence, eh.

The problem is that, while there are times when violent acts may bring about positive outcomes, it is extremely rare for those outcomes to be in the minds of those committing the acts. It is far more common for someone to commit violence as an expression of their anger, while rationalising that it is justified because they are aware of the arguments in favour of violence apply to whatever it is that they really want to do in the moment.

	▲	bubblegumcrisis 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you think that people haven't had enough time to think about wealth disparity? This argument you make is fine for spur of the moment violence, but for acts resulting from the structure violence of the super wealthy. Dunno.
	▲	thin_carapace an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		in no way does this truth imply that violence is an invalid response, merely that preconsideration is required to determine whether a violent act is morally just

▲

pesus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We aren't, but the president and certain politicians sure are.

▲

mystraline 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We absolutely CAN call for violence. And especially political violence. Theres even a TV show with it as a name.

Its calling for "Law and Order". Its violence against the 'correct group'.

You absolutely can call for violence (now) against protestors, ANTIFA, anti-surveillance (DEFLOCK), unionists, homeless, drug users, and other deemed by federal, state, and local officials as undesirable.

You cant directly call for violence to black people by name, but eupamisms are still fine to allude to. "Those people", "ghetto", etc.

And the violence BY police and government way exceed the violence by the public they target.

Also, thou shalt NEVER advocate for violence against CEOs, business leaders, politicians, and the like. Their lives are worth like 1M of us plebes. So those who come to their defense will do so crazily and way over-respond, like cops do routinely.

Thats why the feds threw threw the book at Luigi Mangione. Cause if he did it, his way is illegal but tremendously effective. And the elites have little defense against this.

(Case in point. In my local area, a person took $100 from a cash register, and got arrested for a class A misdemeanor and 2 other charges. Whereas the same restaurant had their owner committed mass wage theft of 27 people to the tune of $72000, and only had to pay a fine.

There absolutely hypocrisy who can advocate and not for violence.)

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]