Domestic Assault in Public: A Case Study

[JowGaWolf]

Pacifisms weird. Now i dont really know **** about Ghandi, but as far as i recall the release of india as a colony/terrtiory was the threat of rebbelion, international community threats and the promise of releasing it after WW2. its also sort of odd, if you realise if the Indians didint fight in WW2, their land would have just been occupied by japan. Say what you want but if you have no sticks, and a group of people has all the sticks, the group of people with the ticks tends to have final say. Pacifists are always protected by non pacifists or are nihilists if they take it to the no violence under any cirucmstances level.

(and this is going off the sterytype ghandi/cultrual myth ghandi, not the real ghandi)

As for the link, i have no idea what that website is, is it acredited and trust worthy as the source being "from the mind of ghandi" implies he wrote it, right there and then. Its not really a soruce unless you can prove he wrote it somehwere.

I've always looked at non-violence as "The willingness to be the Victim." It is something that is done when you want to show the worst of a ruling class. No one like a ruling class to beat those who have done nothing. Dogs and fire hoses against a group who is only marching and stating how unfair they are being treated, proves the reason for the march without a doubt. It is a "chess move" that requires sacrifice.

If the ruling class is smart enough then they would handle such situations with care. Going overboard or not showing care for the citizens in such a imbalance way will only turn the citizens against the ruling class. Crime is bad, but Civil Unrest is the worst as it usually highlights troubles within the system or highlights those who would take power by force. Acting with force will only give the ruling class justification for responding with force. That is the real strength on non-violence protests. It's the quickest way to gain support.

Compare Jan 6th with BLM protests over the summer. One was by force and not many people got behind that. The other was non-violent and the world followed. I don't see non-violence in the same light that Ghandi sees it, or should I say as he claims to see it. There are limitations to non-violence. It's not a one size fits all. Ghandi learned that the hard way when he tried to use the same approach with India and what is now Pakistan.

He also learn the weakness of non-violent protest. It only works when you have a lot of people doing it. It doesn't work if you are the only one who is doing the non-violent protest. It also must be visible to many. Me non-violent protest in my home doesn't work. The other big issue is the weakness of only having one person lead the way. Get rid of that person and the support will fall. Have multiple organizations supporting the non-violent protest and it becomes a harder thing to kill.

I don't think non-violence would work against a group who wishes your kind to no longer exists. History has proved that there are many who are willing and able to wipe out a group of people or a culture. taking a non-violent approach will just make their jobs easier.

 

[chodanbo]

This happened last month in my town:

Hampton Papa John’s employee killed trying to help co-worker being assaulted

DeShawn “Shawn” Powell was working as a Papa John’s pizza driver on July 22 when he headed out at 7:20 p.m. for what he thought would be a routine delivery. But near the side door…

www.dailypress.com

I saw this article on my Facebook news feed, but refrained from commenting on it because I knew but I would have been perceived as trolling.

TLDR, a man witnessed another man beating his girlfriend in the parking lot. He stepped in to try to protect her, but the boyfriend pulled out a gun and shot him dead.

Of course, the comments are going to be full of people praising him for his deed. I didn't want to be that guy expressing disagreement with what he did. I know, because I've done it before on articles about similar situations.

I think this is a better place to do it.

I'd really like to think that this is only a mistake that someone who grew up in rural areas all their lives would have made.

I'm of the mind that if a man has the nuts to beat a woman in public, it's probably because he's packing. That said, I would not get involved unless I was armed myself. And even then, I might still think twice. You have to ask yourself whether or not what is going on is worth anyone losing their lives over.

Surely, everyone on Facebook is a badass that would have gotten involved whether they were armed or not; and you'd better not be that guy who takes a different position.

I think that as men, it's in our instinct to protect a woman in danger. But that hard wiring existed long before the gun was invented. If I was there with the guy who got involved, I likely would have asked him to stay put and call the police. Protecting someone from getting a black eye is not worth your life.

Thoughts? Would you get involved, and would it matter whether or not you were armed?

He could have helped by calling 911.

 

[drop bear]

I've always looked at non-violence as "The willingness to be the Victim." It is something that is done when you want to show the worst of a ruling class. No one like a ruling class to beat those who have done nothing. Dogs and fire hoses against a group who is only marching and stating how unfair they are being treated, proves the reason for the march without a doubt. It is a "chess move" that requires sacrifice.

If the ruling class is smart enough then they would handle such situations with care. Going overboard or not showing care for the citizens in such a imbalance way will only turn the citizens against the ruling class. Crime is bad, but Civil Unrest is the worst as it usually highlights troubles within the system or highlights those who would take power by force. Acting with force will only give the ruling class justification for responding with force. That is the real strength on non-violence protests. It's the quickest way to gain support.

Compare Jan 6th with BLM protests over the summer. One was by force and not many people got behind that. The other was non-violent and the world followed. I don't see non-violence in the same light that Ghandi sees it, or should I say as he claims to see it. There are limitations to non-violence. It's not a one size fits all. Ghandi learned that the hard way when he tried to use the same approach with India and what is now Pakistan.

He also learn the weakness of non-violent protest. It only works when you have a lot of people doing it. It doesn't work if you are the only one who is doing the non-violent protest. It also must be visible to many. Me non-violent protest in my home doesn't work. The other big issue is the weakness of only having one person lead the way. Get rid of that person and the support will fall. Have multiple organizations supporting the non-violent protest and it becomes a harder thing to kill.

I don't think non-violence would work against a group who wishes your kind to no longer exists. History has proved that there are many who are willing and able to wipe out a group of people or a culture. taking a non-violent approach will just make their jobs easier.

Violent protest doesn't work if you are the only person doing it either.

 

[dvcochran]

Violent protest doesn't work if you are the only person doing it either.

Does no good to beat a dead horse either.