This is the original question
Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?It’s scary that 66% do not think it is sometimes justified. BUT this question was asked with jan 6th in mind. Meaning this question does not fit a general purpose question because the mind of people was tricked into thinking about jan 6th.
If 66% of the people would actually think it was never justified america would have another problem on its long sad list of problems.
If 66% of the people would actually think it was never justified america would have another problem on its long sad list of problems.
I do not know whether it is 66% or not, but would you be shocked if it were a high number? Say, double digit percentages, for instance.
I don’t know if I was shocked.
Yes, after a little bit of thinking I’d be shocked.
There are only two possible ways that a large number of people would say violence (against the government) is never justified. Either people don’t understand the meaning of the word never or they ignore the strong meaning of it or they truly believe violence should never be applied.
The first means people are not enough educated to even answer the question properly which shouldn’t be shocking but still is to me. The second one means there are many people who think violence is never justified which I can understand (but not support) to some degree. But even then, never is a really strong word.
What’s your take on this?
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.
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.
What kind of question is this? In every country there has been some level of violence against the government at some time. Its just a fact of life, and calling it “unjustified” wont make it go away.
There is also the Right of revolution.
<insert Wikipedia “you can help by expanding it” meme>
Not surprising. The problem is that too many stupid people are initiating violence when it is not necessary and has no valid justification.
The trouble is that, philosophically speaking, there are no useful guidelines for when violence is or is not justified.
When dealing with individuals, we all know when we’re justified in using violence against them (in self-defense against violence already initiated or reasonably imminent). When dealing with governments (or maybe more generalized to “any large group”), this standard just doesn’t cut it. For one, if they’ve already initiated violence against you… you’re going to lose. For another, the goal of a tyrannical government is to control you against your will, so them murdering you generally subverts their own intentions. Instead, they merely threaten violence, and often do so in a way that psychologically interrupts your ability to see that as justifying counter-violence.
People jumping the gun and trying to get riled up is a reaction to that (making sure that the psychology never interrupts the justification of counter-violence). Of course, that just means that they also attempt insurrection even when there isn’t anything resembling justification.
Until people are willing to talk about the subject, we can’t even explore just when it is and when it isn’t justified, and we’ll be left with a “you’ll know it when you see it” approach that means no one can be certain that they should fight back until they’re being shoveled into the ovens.
Probably, we’re all scared (whether or not it’s the case) that if we were to come up with a logical philosophy, we’d discover that we should have done something decades ago.
Both sides of my family fought in the American Revolution and our family name is on a famous historical landmark. I’m not going to dispute the need may exist. The U.S. was founded on fighting unjust leadership. That is why the right to gun ownership is so highly valued here.
Was violence/insurrection necessary on 1/6/2021? Absolutely not. Violence was used in an attempt to negate my legal vote in the election. It did not represent the people. It represented extremists.
Was violence/insurrection necessary on 1/6/2021? Absolutely not. Violence was used in an attempt to negate my legal vote in the election. It did not represent the people. It represented extremists.
I do not support those people, and they certainly committed crimes. By my count, there’s at least rioting in there, and likely others.
I wonder if it rises to the level of “insurrection” though. If you were to attempt insurrection, would you show up dressed in costumes, in most cases (the vast majority) unarmed, and without a plan for resistance? This was something more akin to a flash mob, and any actual insurrection remained solely in their absurd fantasies.
Those calling it an insurrection are doing so to try to milk it for all its political worth. More so than any child with a skinned knee wailing about how they have to go to the hospital ever did. They should be worrying about midterms, where they’re likely to lose their offices… legitimately.
It’s an insurrection initiated by Trump and his higher level supporters. The people who broke into the capital were pawns in the act. Idiots. Things said by Flynn and others made it obvious prior to Jan. 6th that this was all planned.
None of your assertions seem to support the claim that it was insurrection, rather than the lesser crimes of rioting. In the year since this happened, I’ve not heard a single reasonable argument that would make it an insurrection. As best I can tell, that word is chosen for its propaganda value… that it’s an attempt to manipulate my opinion so one party can do better than the other over the next few election cycles. I do not like to be manipulated.
Do you?
It was insurrection. I’m not going to debate it. The evidence was present before the idiots stormed the capital. I predicted the event months ahead of it occurring, so I hardly think I was being manipulated.
You and yours were predicting it every year for the last 50 years. It’s hardly prophetic when you do that.
As for your evidence, I’m not sure how it could be for honest-to-god insurrection, when “people storming the capital” is the act that allegedly is the insurrection.
