Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

When is Violence Justified?


Recommended Posts

I actually like the milkshake thing. Of course you can't physically assault any old dickhead in the street, but pranking them is probably the second most satisfying thing you could do to them that isn't beyond the pale. It's also hilarious. Personally would like to see Farage get a bucket of water dumped on him from the top of a door next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

I actually like the milkshake thing. Of course you can't physically assault any old dickhead in the street, but pranking them is probably the second most satisfying thing you could do to them that isn't beyond the pale. It's also hilarious. Personally would like to see Farage get a bucket of water dumped on him from the top of a door next. 

I'd like to see someone pretend to be leading him towards wherever he needs to go and lead him straight into a gunge tank.

 

Leave him in there for the rest of the life, gunging him again every few hours.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Try doing it to a policeman - or a politician - and you will be charged with committing a non-violent crime.

 

Try doing it to you and (I assume from that post) you would respond violently. Fair enough; that's your call. But your violent response doesn't mean that the milkshake itself was violence. 

 

As for my reference to Mandela, etc. nobody mentioned Farridge. Moof asked how do you oppose the far-right; you said by sticking within the law. Bollocks to that. The law says, for example, that racist hate groups like the EDL or the DFLA have the right to march through our towns and cities and the police can't stop them until after they have assaulted or directly threatened people.  That's a law I'm happy to go against. It isn't the law that keeps Liverpool Fascist-free: it's the Scousers.

 

If unjust laws exist to support unjust power structures, we will never achieve progress by sticking within the law. 

Scousers come out in numbers and shout down fascists, thats all that is needed, not violence. Violence can only be justified in self defence.

 

Do you think it is ok to chuck milkshakes over Nigel Farrage? Would you do it? Do you think the left or those that hold your views benefit from it being done? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, moof said:

Fine, take “terrible” out, if that makes you happy. What would you suggest? If pouring a milkshake on someone is an illegitimate act of political opposition to the pernicious evil of the far right, what do you suggest as a better tactic? 

A leaflet campaign

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

As for restricting your protests to anything that is within the law, thankfully Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, the suffragettes, the founders of the trade union movement, etc. didn't take that approach. 

At least 2 of the examples here advocated non violence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Scousers come out in numbers and shout down fascists, thats all that is needed, not violence. Violence can only be justified in self defence.

 

Do you think it is ok to chuck milkshakes over Nigel Farrage? Would you do it? Do you think the left or those that hold your views benefit from it being done? 

 

 

 

 

When Scousers come out in numbers that way, we're breaking the law.  That's my point. Sometimes you have to do things that are not within the law. This isn’t an argument in favour of violence  (or even in favour of non-violent common assault like milkshaking); I'm just pointing out that your argument that opposition to the far right should be kept within the law is too limiting to be effective. 

 

As for the specific case of milkshaking Farridge, although it's objectively hilarious to see him cowering on a bus even in his Kentish heartland, I don't think it's OK. Milkshaking an out-and-out Fascist like Yaxley-Lennon or that rapey UKIP cunt is absolutely OK.

 

Farridge is very much at the fringes of what a civilised society should tolerate within its political discourse.  Fascists are beyond that fringe; tolerate them and the society will be destroyed.  They must be stopped before their violence and hatred takes hold. If their progress can be halted by comical, strawberry-flavoured resistance, that's absolutely brilliant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

At least 2 of the examples here advocated non violence

Yes. I know. I agree with them.

 

The point is that none of them said "we have to stay within the law" because they all recognised that the laws supported the oppressors. They all started by breaking the law and ended by changing the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

When Scousers come out in numbers that way, we're breaking the law.  That's my point. Sometimes you have to do things that are not within the law. This isn’t an argument in favour of violence  (or even in favour of non-violent common assault like milkshaking); I'm just pointing out that your argument that opposition to the far right should be kept within the law is too limiting to be effective. 

 

As for the specific case of milkshaking Farridge, although it's objectively hilarious to see him cowering on a bus even in his Kentish heartland, I don't think it's OK. Milkshaking an out-and-out Fascist like Yaxley-Lennon or that rapey UKIP cunt is absolutely OK.

 

Farridge is very much at the fringes of what a civilised society should tolerate within its political discourse.  Fascists are beyond that fringe; tolerate them and the society will be destroyed.  They must be stopped before their violence and hatred takes hold. If their progress can be halted by comical, strawberry-flavoured resistance, that's absolutely brilliant. 

How are Scousers breaking the law? What does "in that way" mean?

 

The examples you gave of Luther King, Gandhi etc were of people trying to change bad laws or for independence. What bad laws are the milkshake protesters trying to change? They are trying to win an argument, it doesnt need law breaking to do that. Yaxley - lennon should be beaten by legal protest and argument, the battle against him in no way compares to the what Gandhi/Luther King were facing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

How are Scousers breaking the law? What does "in that way" mean?

 

The examples you gave of Luther King, Gandhi etc were of people trying to change bad laws or for independence. What bad laws are the milkshake protesters trying to change? They are trying to win an argument, it doesnt need law breaking to do that. Yaxley - lennon should be beaten by legal protest and argument, the battle against him in no way compares to the what Gandhi/Luther King were facing

You can't beat them because they control the argument and when they don't they knowingly incite others to commit actual violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

You can't beat them because they control the argument and when they don't they knowingly incite others to commit actual violence.

What does "control the argument" mean? Yaxley-lennon somehow cannot be out argued/protested? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, A Red said:

What does "control the argument" mean? Yaxley-lennon somehow cannot be out argued/protested? Really?

They are ridiculous people,more ridiculous than the Monster Raving Looney Party,yet get the media profile of a 'traditional' political party. This needs pushing back against by most means necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TK421 said:

A Red defending his Brexit hero Farage to the hilt. 

No hero of mine, I'd have the same attitude if it was Corbyn.

 

As I said to you before, I may well have made a mistake voting for brexit. Now watch yourself or i'll take my gloves off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

They are ridiculous people,more ridiculous than the Monster Raving Looney Party,yet get the media profile of a 'traditional' political party. This needs pushing back against by most means necessary.

Yes they are and no they dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, A Red said:

How are Scousers breaking the law? What does "in that way" mean?

 

The examples you gave of Luther King, Gandhi etc were of people trying to change bad laws or for independence. What bad laws are the milkshake protesters trying to change? They are trying to win an argument, it doesnt need law breaking to do that. Yaxley - lennon should be beaten by legal protest and argument, the battle against him in no way compares to the what Gandhi/Luther King were facing

We break the law when we obstruct the highway and prevent a legal march by the Fascists.  We break the law when we kettle them in Moorfields. We break the law when we shower Nazis with bananas and make them hide in the Left Luggage office.

 

Fascists are not and must never be part of mainstream political discourse.  Giving them a platform, allowing them to campaign and to spread their dangerous lies, will only make them stronger. They need to be delegitimised and discredited. Non-violent ridicule - such as following them with the Benny Hill theme or slopping them with milkshake - is an excellent way of doing that.

 

Let's stop pretending anyone is trying to claim some sort of equivalence between milkshake and Ghandi. The point of this thread was to discuss more general themes of moral philosophy. In the middle of everyone else talking about cold drinks, you made a more general point that you should stay within the law when opposing the far right.  That general point is more interesting than the specifics of milkshakes. My general point is that sometimes  - often - you have to break an unjust law.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

We break the law when we obstruct the highway and prevent a legal march by the Fascists.  We break the law when we kettle them in Moorfields. We break the law when we shower Nazis with bananas and make them hide in the Left Luggage office.

 

Fascists are not and must never be part of mainstream political discourse.  Giving them a platform, allowing them to campaign and to spread their dangerous lies, will only make them stronger. They need to be delegitimised and discredited. Non-violent ridicule - such as following them with the Benny Hill theme or slopping them with milkshake - is an excellent way of doing that.

 

Let's stop pretending anyone is trying to claim some sort of equivalence between milkshake and Ghandi. The point of this thread was to discuss more general themes of moral philosophy. In the middle of everyone else talking about cold drinks, you made a more general point that you should stay within the law when opposing the far right.  That general point is more interesting than the specifics of milkshakes. My general point is that sometimes  - often - you have to break an unjust law.

 

 

What unjust law are you wanting to change? If you think the only way to deal with legal marches is to obstruct the highway and chuck bananas then in my opinion, you are wrong, both legally and tactically (I didnt include kettling them as i have no idea what that is). Freedom of speech, such as it is, allows them to spout their shite and you to argue/protest it down. You give them lifeblood every time someone takes them on by breaking the law.

 

You brought up Gandhi etc as a rather daft example of equivalence between their fight for freedom and the fight against Yaxley Lennon. I take your point, that perhaps sometimes the law has to be broken in the cases of Ghandi, Luther King etc but not when fighting against a relatively small and stupid group like EDL et all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...