PinkyCoyote@sopuli.xyz to Asklemmy · 4 months agoWhat would you like to change about Lemmy culture?message-squaremessage-square480fedilinkarrow-up1153arrow-down110
arrow-up1143arrow-down1message-squareWhat would you like to change about Lemmy culture?PinkyCoyote@sopuli.xyz to Asklemmy · 4 months agomessage-square480fedilink
minus-squareCowbee [he/him]linkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·4 months agoIt’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.
minus-squaresteeznson@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·edit-24 months agoYour 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.
minus-squareCowbee [he/him]linkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·4 months ago Your argument here is just saying, “Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed.” I mean, I believe that, but that’s not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy. Maybe you are tweaking it to be, “Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed.” That’s literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.
minus-squaresteeznson@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·4 months agoThe 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.
minus-squareCowbee [he/him]linkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·4 months agoHow 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.
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.