this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
141 points (93.8% liked)
Asklemmy
44151 readers
1010 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Saying that deliberately antagonizing a minority group will lead to a violent reaction that will be used as justification for far more crackdowns is not advocacy for violence.
This is essentially what has happend in Palestine.
In the UK we have had 2 MPs assassinated in the past 10 years. One Labour and one Conservative. Comments that essentially say, "The government should do what I want or there will be more political violence", are inciting violence.
The figleaf of being like "unless X happens, someone will do Y" is the same as 4chan maniacs threatening to commit acts of terror "in minecraft" or whatever.
What an interesting move, shifting the argument from "the government deliberately antagonizing and oppressing minority populations is bad and will see consequences if this continues" to "if the government doesn't do what I want, there will be violence."
You're deliberately erasing the core of the argument to insert your own.
You are being disingenuous here. I'm not shifting their argument. Here is their full comment with annotations -
Annotation 1: politicians making incorrect choices are going to force the hand of activists for this cause...
A2: which will inevitably lead to political violence against members of the government
A3: Then the media will blame the activists instead of themselves
In what world is that not advocating for political violence?
Let's replace the issue in question and see if it still sounds ok to you:
Does the above sound acceptable?
It's simple, the government oppressing minorities will usually lead to said minority group lashing out.
This is what happened in Palestine.
This is not an argument for violence, but for government action to prevent violence by ceasing oppression of minority groups.
Simple.
Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."
Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."
This is literally the dictionary definition of advocating for something.
Advocate, verb, to publically suggest an idea, development or way of doing something.
I mean, I believe that, but that's not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy.
That's literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.
The 2nd argument there, the one you claim to be making, is advocating for political violence.
I don't think you're debating in good faith here.
How is saying "people will eventually fight if oppressed hard enough" the same as saying "oppressed people should fight their oppressors?"
The first statement is analysis of cause and effect, the second is advocacy. You're intentionally misframing it to spread a narrative.