• @DPUGT2
    link
    12 years ago

    My take is that violence is apparently only justifiable after-the-fact. People are more than willing to look back at some historical event and say “this violence was justified” (and of course, for a few events, even to denounce and say that it wasn’t justified)… but no one seems to be able to tell me what the criteria are that makes it justifiable in a way that I could use to objectively test whether I should become violent now.

    I am unsure why. Possibly, they are reluctant to codify such rules for fear authorities would use those rules against them… the authorities can objectively test the circumstances too, know that people are going to become violent soon, and then crack down before they can. Possibly, people are simply too dumb to codify these rules, even if they are codifiable. Or, maybe even all this is subjective bullshit, and no such rules are possible.

    As for the original question, I’d guess that up to 20% of the population understands “never”, is using the strong meaning, and thinks it never justifiable (except in hindsight). This is because they value stability far more than they value justice or decency, and they are unrepentant about this.

    • @oh_jeez_rick
      link
      1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      That’s a really good question. I’m certainly not in the position to answer that one right now. But if you are aware that there might be situations when violence is justified, then the answer “never” is not that appropriate.

      (Not speaking of the last election, just to make an example when it is appropriate to use violance) if a government would fake an election, you’d have every right to take over the government violently (a moral right, not a written law). I’m not saying you need to do it, just saying if people chose to do it violently, it could be justified. It doesn’t even depend on the outcome - and any ruler would always deny the appropriateness.