(i lied)

  • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Honestly, I think it’s OK to hold a bit of both beliefs and have that dissonance generate a sort of shame-tinged discomfort.

    Violence should, by any rational and reasonable measure, be avoided. But that doesn’t mean that violence isn’t necessary at very specific points. To be more specific, the threat of violence can be a powerful equaliser when faced with aggressive, unrelenting abuse wrapped in denial.

    We still shouldn’t glorify it, though. Snitches get stitches in this not related to current events context, because a show of force is sometimes* necessary to establish the veracity of said threat. But we shouldn’t forget that murder is murder, even when the murdered was a murderer.

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 days ago

      Violence should be avoided, which is why our healthcare system needs to be replaced by a single payer universal system like the rest of the developed world. The current system is violence. social murder is violence.

    • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 days ago

      But we should also recognise when violence

      a. Is bad

      b. Is completely legal

      And that this is, in fact, a bad thing. And we should question why such violence is legal.

      … Even if you come out at the other end deciding that yes, this is how it should be. The only “wrong” thing is not thinking about it.

      • latenightnoir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 days ago

        Exactly! Violence is literally just a thing that exists (I’d argue a sun swallowing a whole planet is pretty violent, for instance), the essence is in the how, when, and why!