You must log in or register to comment.
Basically a neurological take on the age old “the ends can never justify the means” take.
??? This is about targeting the correct audience instead of what’s easy.
??? It seems we do not understand each other at all.
But “make sure your motivation is to help the system” isn’t related to “the ends justify the means” at all.
The OP is claiming that if done correctly, the ends justify the means.
I’m not criticizing your idea that the ends don’t justify the means. It’s only that your reply is a non sequitur to the OP.
Well, my understanding on the OPs text is that the means necessarily shape the ends, but instead of a sociological interpretation, it is an equally valid neurological one.
And this is in turn the exact same argument as that the ends should never justify the means, because if you use the wrong means you will never reach the ends you want.
The OP states it is justified to use violence against the right people to achieve your ends.
“The ends never justify the means.” is a statement that violence is never the right answer.
Hmm, no? Where does the OP say that?
I think it means violent activists are more likely to attack members of their community (i.e. people who live in the same city as you and are relatively close to you on the social-economic scale) than actual brownshirts
Maybe also, but I think the argument is rather that once the brown shirts nearby are gone they will find someone else to turn on, and historically speaking this was often their previous allies with some minor ideological disagreements.
I think defining terms is ineffective. Kinda like “state’s rights”. State’s rights to do what? Focus on the actual bad shit going on instead baffling people with fancy words that can be twisted or misused later. If someone says “people aren’t dumb enough to chase the high they get from seeking righteous justices by doing whatever is easiest such as attacking those closest to them” then you can go into a speech about how it happens so often that there are papers on it and it got its own term.
Focus on the actual harm being done to people. Adding terms creates a layer of distance, and opportunity to distract the conversation and waste time debating the term instead of the actual problem.
yeah stuff like this always feels… wanky…
you go ahead and philosophise about precisely how to go about things, and i’ll be busy kicking nazis in the dick.
In my area, the social structures to constructively or destructively use violence are missing; leaving only a small minority of people looking for a fight. And often they fail to meet up with others looking also for a fight: leading to quiet nights of introspection.
And I don’t think this is going to change. Which is going to frustrate a lot of people up and down the political spectrum. At the same time I think that this is for the good. It keeps people safe
Anyone remember how the Syrian civil war started ? Most of the idealistic people who liked fighting were gone after a few months.
