Passive Violence?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

If a man watches Genocide on their tv, their government bombing and massacring people and you do nothing, are you not yourself being violent.

Being nonviolent in the most violent society we have ever seen is violence itsself.

So this begs the question, who is innocent, i mean when i see videos of Afghanistan, i could go on with my white working class life, work, listen to music, play football, but that would make me guilty of supporting genocide in my eyes.

What do you defne as innocent, and what is your stance on passive violence?

Cheers.

[The Inquisitor]

Reminds me of 1984.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Why?

[The Inquisitor]

I remember reading a scene where everyone gathered in a theater and watched a flim on how the war with one of the -asias was going. The film showed a plane gunning down civilians stranded in some body of water, and people either cheered or just sat there and accepted it as part of everyday life. The government had dehumanized the "enemy" so much that people thought their murder was either justified or unavoidable.

[Sir Comradical]

No, you're only responsible for what you do, not what you don't do.

[Guerrilla]

No, you're only responsible for what you do, not what you don't do.

I don't agree.

Being tolerant towards intolerance is being intolerant yourself. When you see innocent people getting hurt, I think you need to have a certain moral and stop it.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

so if a woman was being raped and i walked in on it and didnt do anything i wouldnt be responsible in part for that woman being raped, thats a bad outlook mate.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Exactly Guerrilla, i would thank you but it wont let me.

[The Inquisitor]

Unfortunately, it has been seared in many people's minds that being able to live with such things is part of being a "strong", "loyal" American. I blame nationalism.

[Sir Comradical]

I don't agree.

Being tolerant towards intolerance is being intolerant yourself. When you see innocent people getting hurt, I think you need to have a certain moral and stop it.

Fair enough...

[Spawn of Stalin]

I would say that if you saw a woman about to get raped and just walked away you were definitely in part responsible because you had the power to stop it but were too damn selfish to bother.....anyone who doesn't at least attempt to do something about the injustices of the world is either ignorant or a complete moron, most people are ignorant and therefore cannot be held responsible for their inaction, but if you understand why these things are wrong and still do nothing about it, then as far as I'm concerned you are guilty of passive violence as you call it

[infraxotl]

I've never once been to a war protest, so does that mean I bear the weight of all the war crimes committed?

It must be depressing to believe in such a definition of "passive violence". Anything short of throwing away everything and joining the Iraqi resistance makes you scum with the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands.

[The Inquisitor]

I've never once been to a war protest, so does that mean I bear the weight of all the war crimes committed?

It must be depressing to believe in such a definition of "passive violence". Anything short of throwing away everything and joining the Iraqi resistance makes you scum with the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands.

I also heard that exhaling breath burns the ozone layer...terrible stuff.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Dont troll morom, if you are a marxist, an anarchist or any kind or revolutionary, and are willing to fight to end genocide, then you are not guilty, if your a normal worker and would be willing to march fight and speak up about it then your not guilty.

Butif you see genocide, you know its genocide for profit, and you do and say nothiong and are not willing to struggle to change it then you are guilty.

[infraxotl]

Protesting is such a meaningless gesture for something like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. What more can a person do than denounce them? The blood is on our hands whether we like it or not, I'm not going to beat myself up over it.

[Guerrilla]

I've never once been to a war protest, so does that mean I bear the weight of all the war crimes committed?

It must be depressing to believe in such a definition of "passive violence". Anything short of throwing away everything and joining the Iraqi resistance makes you scum with the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands.

I said "Being tolerant towards intolerance is being intolerant yourself". There is a difference between being doing nothing and doing something.

I guess that you are against imperialist wars (duh, it's a revolutionary left forum). But the question is: Are you against it and trying to do something to stop it, or are you just against it?

If it's the last one, then I believe you are intolerant. Just standing by is a luxury not everybody can have. Most people are directly influenced by things like racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism etc. Doing nothing about it makes it worse for them. If you think everybody just suddenly quits doing bad things without people stopping them that is very naive. :rolleyes:

[infraxotl]

Strangely enough, I feel fine. I don't even feel annoyed about the implication that I'm a bad person for making the Iraq war worse by sitting around reading Hobsbawm instead of linking arms with liberals and chanting anti-war slogans.

It's no wonder certain leftists tend to burn out and become fervent neoliberals, having such strong emotions about things you cannot do anything about must take its toll.

[Dimentio]

If a man watches Genocide on their tv, their government bombing and massacring people and you do nothing, are you not yourself being violent.

Being nonviolent in the most violent society we have ever seen is violence itsself.

So this begs the question, who is innocent, i mean when i see videos of Afghanistan, i could go on with my white working class life, work, listen to music, play football, but that would make me guilty of supporting genocide in my eyes.

What do you defne as innocent, and what is your stance on passive violence?

Cheers.

Contemporary western society, in terms of causes of mortality, is one of the more peaceful societies ever. Less than 1% are killed by direct violence inside a typical western society.

I would argue that the ancient empires were much more violent, both internally and externally. Correct me when I see American soldiers build pyramids out of Iraqi heads.

[The Inquisitor]

Contemporary western society, in terms of causes of mortality, is one of the more peaceful societies ever. Less than 1% are killed by direct violence inside a typical western society.

I would argue that the ancient empires were much more violent, both internally and externally. Correct me when I see American soldiers build pyramids out of Iraqi heads.

You kind of avoided the entire point of the OP and veered away from the current topic, Dimentio.

[Red_Insurgent]

Strangely enough, I feel fine. I don't even feel annoyed about the implication that I'm a bad person for making the Iraq war worse by sitting around reading Hobsbawm instead of linking arms with liberals and chanting anti-war slogans.

It's no wonder certain leftists tend to burn out and become fervent neoliberals, having such strong emotions about things you cannot do anything about must take its toll.

I kind of agree with this guy, I can see Guerrilas point though. I mean seriously what the fuck shall we do? Hang on I'll go out to my shed and get my rake come on guys! Lets fight them!

It is sad that millions have been killed, yes. But beating yourself up about it constantly is not the way to think, we would all be manic depressives if we all thought like that. There is just nothing we can do and if you think not doing anything is supporting it then that is ridiculous, because we can't do anything anyway! Yes you can march and scream in the street and hold hands with unwashed lib dem supporters, while listening to Muse, but it is all pointless, nothing will happen. They're hardly going to think "Oh no a few liberals are shouting and screaming RETREAT RETREAT!". And trust me if I could do something then really I would because these wars are absolutely terrible and illegal and all created for profit.

Sorry if I came across wrong.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

No dont get the rake, just get out into the streets and organise agitate and whatnot, it would be easier if we had all marxist parties come together for propoganda purposes, like on billboards putting up big pictures of chared palestinian babies then underneath put, if you support the isreali occupation, you support this

Or pictures of starving children and underneath, if you vote for the three parties you advocate a system that forcefully starves 25 thousand people a day to keep profits up.

I ama marxist leninist, but i like the anarchist groups like classwars aproach, no mass theorising all day just

Bashing the rich !

[The Inquisitor]

Yes you can march and scream in the street and hold hands with unwashed lib dem supporters, while listening to Muse

Glenn Beck listens to MUSE...:blink:

[Chambered Word]

Glenn Beck listens to MUSE...:blink:

Really? Or are you just trying to ruin Muse for me completely?

[The Inquisitor]

Really? Or are you just trying to ruin Muse for me completely?

"On his morning radio show Beck gave high praise to the new Muse album and the band in general. He goes on to compare some of their lyrics
to the George Orwell book 1984 and their warning that a one world government is coming if you don’t wake up, which happen to be similar views to Beck. Sounds more like Alex Jones to me.

By the end of the broadcast Beck was contacted by representatives of Muse wanting him to retract his statement."

Beck likes Muse, but Muse doesn't return the love. So you should love them even more now.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

i want to make gay sexy time with glen beck just so all his tea bagger morons will abandon him, my slogan will be.

I teabagged with the head teabagger.

[ZeroNowhere]

Being nonviolent in the most violent society we have ever seen is violence itsself.No, that is not what violence means. If you think that you share some responsibility for the violence, that is fine, but that does not make you violent. Responsibility has two different meanings, and one can be morally responsible for the violence without having actually engaged in it. Though I don't think that any individual can be blamed for not overthrowing capitalism, as no individual could overthrow capitalism.


I said "Being tolerant towards intolerance is being intolerant yourself".The word 'intolerant' does not mean that. It does not mean anything approximating that.


Dont troll morom, if you are a marxist, an anarchist or any kind or revolutionary, and are willing to fight to end genocide, then you are not guilty, if your a normal worker and would be willing to march fight and speak up about it then your not guilty.

Butif you see genocide, you know its genocide for profit, and you do and say nothiong and are not willing to struggle to change it then you are guilty.Not really, being willing to fight for something, or going on various dull marches, do about as much to stop the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Israeli attacks on Palestine, and so on, as not doing either. Ergo, we would all share the blame. Though I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to be throwing out blame regarding this subject (or any other one). I mean, it may make for good rhetoric, though I doubt it, but from an ethical standpoint, it strikes me as somewhat silly. Blame for its own sake is hardly something worthwhile.


so if a woman was being raped and i walked in on it and didnt do anything i wouldnt be responsible in part for that woman being raped, thats a bad outlook mate.You certainly would not have raped her; indeed, that would be a rather absurd and trivializing misuse of the word. You would also not deserve any blame, because nobody ever does. Of course, in this case, you may actually have the ability to stop the rapist on your own, so it's not even analogous.

Again, though, you seem to be conflating the two senses of 'responsibility'. One may as well say that everybody is responsible for global warming due to not killing themselves and thus preventing themselves from emitting carbon dioxide. This may well be true in a sense, namely that people's breathing does contribute in a small way, but it is utterly trivial, and should not strike anybody as a burden, and certainly not as deserving of blame, which ties in with moral responsibility.

In an objective sense, people may well be responsible for capitalism due to not suddenly rising up in revolution, but this is not very interesting.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

thats not what i meant mate.

What i was trying to say is, say there are massive clashes with police and after years of political struggle revolutionaries raise the conciousness of huge amounts of the public, say 12 million people.

Now say the people start mobolizing to rid us of capitalism and end the imperialist wars.

Now if you know that we are commiting genocide, you understand the nature of imperialism, yet you do nothing to fight or remove it, are you guilty of not partaking in a revolution which would stop the suffering of those nations we are bombing shooting and masecring in?

Doesnt this equal violence, because you are allowing that violence to continue without challenging it?

[ZeroNowhere]

thats not what i meant mate.

What i was trying to say is, say there are massive clashes with police and after years of political struggle revolutionaries raise the conciousness of huge amounts of the public, say 12 million people.

Now say the people start mobolizing to rid us of capitalism and end the imperialist wars.

Now if you know that we are commiting genocide, you understand the nature of imperialism, yet you do nothing to fight or remove it, are you guilty of not partaking in a revolution which would stop the suffering of those nations we are bombing shooting and masecring in?

Doesnt this equal violence, because you are allowing that violence to continue without challenging it?
No, because the meaning of 'violence' does not encompass 'allowing violence to continue'. If somebody is being violent, then they are engaging in violence, rather than simply allowing it.

Again, yes, in that hypothetical situation you would be responsible in an objective sense for not partaking in a revolution which would stop said suffering; this only means that you are not partaking in a revolution which would do so. However, I do not think that this is blameworthy, or criminal.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If you experience injustice, discrimination or violence that you can directly stop or affect and you don't you yourself have to be held responsible for that as well as who is perpetrating it.