Do you believe in using violence as a means of political advancement?

Is it ok to attack others if you disagree with their political viewpoints or stances? For instance, If someone has a view that you feel is incredibly offensive, do you believe you are justified in physically assaulting them? I'm curious to see what OT thinks. I know this topic reeks of controversy, so lock if you must.

Personally, I don't view violence as a means to anything. Though, it would be a tough choice depending on the situation.

Are you drawing a distinction between committing physical harm with direct blows and committing physical harm through policy?

I don't like it, but I admit that there are many countries that wouldn't exist without it.

Assaulting someone you disagree with. Shoving, punching, throwing eggs at, etc.

@sonicare: Pardon my lack of clarity, I erred on the side of brevity.

Do you draw an ethical distinction between harm through policy and harm through physical? If so, why?

I ask because I think this is pretty integral to your question. It's not the only relevant question, but it's an important one.

No I disagree with it, which is why I dont like groups like antifa or proud boys, atleast in american politics, if you assault someone dont be surprised if you get rocked in self defense

if I lived in a 3rd world country with abusive dictators my stance would be different tho.

Unless they attack first, absolutely not.

Like with most questions in political philosophy, it depends on the circumstance.

I'm just referring to assaulting someone you disagree with. Not with policy but with physical assault.

So it's justified in some circumstances and not others? How do you determine, objectively, when it's right and when it's wrong?

@sonicare: Well first of all you can’t determine “objectively”. This is a question that depends on one’s subjective views of right and wrong, just or unjust, etc. Again, it depends on the circumstance. Perhaps if you gave a few examples or scenarios I could tell you if I agree or disagree in those particular instances.

don't political stances often materialize as policy?

If you're restricting this hypothetical to a conversational disagreement that isn't manifested in policy, then no, that's ridiculous. If it's extended to stances that affect policy things can get grayer.

No

if you have no argument left other than violence, you've lost.

perhaps you should get better at defending your positions when challenged.

Do you believe in using violence as a means of political advancement?

Like someone already stated, it depends on the circumstances.

I think history has shown us that sometimes violence is necessary.

Fighting a War of Independence, like the Founding Fathers did, is using violence (some consider defending oneself NOT violence but lets leave that aside) to advance a political cause.

Many like to fancy themselves as Gandhi or Martin Luther King but sometimes you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.

Is it ok to attack others if you disagree with their political viewpoints or stances?

As in a personal held believe by an individual? Do they act on it? If my neighbor believes that Hispanics should be held as slaves but doesn't act on it, then those are his thoughts.

If said neighbors took affirmative steps toward achieving that goal (slavery of Hispanics) I would be justified to take action against him.

If what you are asking is that if get to be the thought police, then no. People get to think what they want to think, no matter how abhorrent.

*****PS: This defining violence as: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Absolutely not.

Great question and I am glad many disagree with violence. I hate violence. Humans are the top of the food chain, we differ from other animals because we have politics, we have logical thinking and we have compassion.

I guess this question arose due to the violence in many countries lately, including Hong Kong where I spend half my time, the other half in Mainland China.

Just take a look at this short compilation of the youth in HK and see what happens when you disagree with them. There is a paradox in their violence because they have turned the city into precisely what they were fighting against. Just watch the video, but note, it's incredibly violent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWs1TS3d7vY

Would I hit someone just over their poliltical views? lol, no, of course not.

I don't condone assault by anyone but in the bigger picture if you're talking violence then we have seen just wars.

Robert The Bruce.

Political violence is often ineffective and has a high chance of backfiring.

Political non-violence (e.g. sit-ins, protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, etc) are far more effective in accomplishing what the party wants. Mostly because it gives the party greater legitimacy, less risk, and is more inclusive. Examples include:

• Gandhi's revolution in India, which led to British decolonization
• The Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. which led to the downfall of Jim Crow in the South
• Jasmine Revolution which saw the downfall of Ben Ali's reign in Tunisia and installment of a secular democracy
• Velvet Revolution in Armenia which saw the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan, a Russian puppet and oligarch, and the rise of Nikol Pashinyan and a more liberal government.
• Tea Party Protests and the rise of the Tea Party Republicans
• Black Lives Matter that led to greater awareness discussions on police brutality and discriminatory justice system
• The Hong Kong Protest's successes in resisting the extradition bill
• There are more examples but that's all I can think of.

Political violence does seem appealing but it's a wrong way to approach things, especially if you look at what's happening in Syria and Libya. There are numerous articles and papers you can look up on so here's one: link

Well, how broadly are we defining political violence? Breaking windows is violence and there where certainly some broken windows during the Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matters and the Hong Kong Protests even if mostly (to different degrees) those movements were largely non-violent. Movements always have radical elements to an extent.

Non-violence is the way to go as long as there are outlets to canalized grievances and complaints and the system reasonably addresses them.

Citizens don't get to air grievances and complaints in repressive states (state violence): for example Cuba.

In general, once there is institutional failure to address grievances the citizenry may move toward violence.

@joebones5000: But you support the left who's backed by Antifa. Interesting!

I am not a Democrat so no, I do not support violence with those who disagree with my political views.

Hmmmm…….I remember trump attendees attacking opposing viewpoints at rallies. You're not pretending they were Democrats are you?

Self defence is another case.

I think those protests got co-opted by a small number of people who were looking to cause violence. But the leaders of those movements did not condone violent means.

Sure, but even those radical elements are useful. A bad cop of sorts. You're scare of Malcolm X? Accept MLK.

Don't like Bernie? Accept a center-left candidate.

1. You're at thanksgiving dinner. The uncle no one likes comes in wearing a "build the wall" t-shirt with a MAGA hat as well. Your wife is a legalized immigrant from Mexico. You shove him and rip of his hat because you feel strongly that both of those are racist.

2. You are a diehard pro-lifer. You strongly believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. You hear a doctor bragging about how many abortions they do per week. You punch them in the face because of your strongly held views that he/she is killing children and that you have a duty to act.

3. Your child was killed in a mass shooting at a school. You see someone wearing an NRA hat and a shirt with the slogan supporting gun rights and strongly criticizing gun control. You do a flying scissor kick at them.

4. You live in Hong Kong. You feel the government is usurping your rights. You vandalize a business known to heavily support the mainland government.

5. You're a part of a specific racial, ethnic, or religious group. There's a monument or structure on public grounds that has strong cultural, religious, or symbolic value to your group. Government decides to tear it down. You physically block and assault their workers.

6. You're an environmentalist. Lumber company has plans to cut down a 400 year old tree on their privately owned land. You disable their logging equipment and physically block/assault their workers from approaching the tree.

7. Part A. Someone calls you a term you find offensive along racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious lines. Part B. They are highly critical of your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.

8. You've lost a loved one due to a foreign war. You go to their funeral but westboro baptist church shows up to protest and begins hurling insults about your loved one. You go all stone cold steve austin on them.

9. Close family member of yours has unwanted pregnancy and goes to have abortion. You go with her to support her. Outside clinic, on public lands, pro-lifers are yelling at her that she is a murderer. You come to blows with them.

Just some scenarios. Curious. Don't know what I would do in a few of them.

1. I would not be associating with him in the first place so I would not be there. If he sprung that up on me I would ignore him. Causing a scene like that would ruin the dinner for everyone.

2. Hard no for me on this one lol.

3. No on this too. Though if they knew about my child and intentionally wore that to antagonize me, that’s a different story. I would not personally react violently to that but if someone else did, I could understand...

4. Don’t live in HK right now but... justified.

5. This one is weird because I don’t recall such a thing happening. The only monuments I hear being torn down are Confederate monuments and racist Southerners aren’t some special group or identity. This would indeed be unjustified if they attacked government workers.

6. It’s private land so this is unjustified. Public land, though, hmm. More info is needed lol.

7. Part A. I would not personally attack anyone for calling me something offensive as I’m a white male making a decent amount of money, so I can’t really think what offensive thing anyone could say to hurt my feelings. Part B. Same as Part A.

8. Justified.

9. I would try to ignore them and would not go on the offensive. If they attacked us I would try to defend myself.

I am not a violent person myself but in certain scenarios I understand why some people would react the way they would.

@drunk_pi: Hello. I would like to point out, The Extradition Bill in Hong Kong was introduced due to the murder of a 19-year old girl (Poon Hui Wing) by her boyfriend (Chan Tong Kai). Both are from HK and went to Taiwan for a holiday.

The bill was introduced because:

1. Hong Kong could not prosecute Chan Tong Kai, because the crime took place in Taiwan.

2. There is no extradition bill between HK and Taiwan, Mainland China or Macau.

3. The loophole enabled the Chan to walk free.

4. Part 1 Section 5c of the Bill clearly states that extradition cannot be used against someone on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinions. (Therefore political protesters cannot by law be extradited)

5. Chan Tong Kai is now free in HK. He spent around 18 months in an HK prison for stealing Poon's credit cards and he used them in HK.

I want to note that, China was included in the extradition treaty, because legally and internationally accepted, Taiwan is a part of China. On every Taiwanese passport, the cover shows, "Republic of China."

So you cannot create an extradition bill for one part of a country and not another.

Moreover, on 23 October, when Chan was released, he said he will give himself up to Taiwan authorities. However, Taiwan will not accept him, due to political posturing. The Taiwanese government will only accept Chan if the Taiwanese police arrest him on Hong Kong soil. This poses a sovereignty issue for the HK government.

The HK police have also suggested handing him over at the international area of the Hong Kong airport, therefore Taiwanese police can take him, but the Taiwanese government has also declined!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50148577

@sonicare: Depends on the ideology. If you’re just a right or left winger, even if you’re a bit on the extreme side I’m fine.

If you’re a skinhead nazi or a KKK member, well...I hope someone burns you alive with a bottle of kerosene. We’ve already seen multiple countries where those political ideologies have won over large subsections of the population and every time it has, many innocent people die.

@Baconstrip78: Huh?

Violence by a left winger or right winger is fine?

But violence by the KKK or a Nazi is not fine?

I think there are times when that can be a necessary evil. IF it becomes clear that the rich own your democracy and it doesn't really matter anymore who you vote for (like in France, if I understand correctly) it becomes OK to attempt to remove the leader(s). Is it OK to simply kill the politicians in power? It's tough to draw that line. I think so, maybe, when it's pretty clear that the people have been set aside and the people can't easily do it through official channels. The people should ultimately hold the power, and I don't think there is always a nice way to go about it.

When it comes to country leaders it is interesting because the removal or death of one can save or improve the life of so many.

In a democracy a leader always governs under the suspicion that they are bought by the rich or the corporate, resulting in the worst thing that can happen to a democracy: nullifying the people's power. If they then choose to appease the rich or the corporate despite them campaigning otherwise during election, then that SHOULD be dangerous for the politician. And they SHOULD be removed if there are strong suspicions that this is happening, because of the major threat it poses to the people's democratic power.

I think it's important to learn from the SJW movement, in that it is important to be quite clear if you use force that it's an exceptional situation and that you end it right there, and to have robust proof of why it had to be done. That it's not just an emotional outburst, but something purely reasonable based on all the options that the people have. This always goes wrong with the SJW movement: Both physically and verbally they act excessively. It's important you can make the case why you do so. And they cannot, and therefore lose the support of the people even if their goals may be worth fighting for.

But to use violence against other people and not the leader(s) seems... more difficult for me to justify. Because they are oftentimes equals to you in power and by law, and will often listen to reason. And there is almost always a better alternative in that situation. When it comes to leaders you don't always have the freedoms (options) that you have with other people.

Depends on the political stance.

If the ruling party thinks it's a good policy to exterminate a certain ethnic group, then yes, I think the opposition has every right to fight back.

If the opposition wants to raise taxes, then you better stick to civil discourse. If there is such a thing anymore.