• WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    If non-violence is always the better answer, then why is it universally accepted that violence is the best answer when the government has a boogie man to catch?

    Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam…you’d think that with all the money and alliances that governments have at their disposal, they could have helped the countries that harbored these people and ensured they were brought to justice and judged by a jury of their countrymen. But that isn’t what happened. They used violence because violence is effective in creating drastic change quickly.

    Non-violence hopes for change slowly, but often is just a tool that gets manipulated to preserve the status quo—just look at the “approved protest areas” that happened with Occupy Wallstreet. They were more than happy to tell those people exactly how to be nonviolent so the impact was meaningless.

    Meanwhile, Luigi’s bullet had plenty of impact and plenty of meaning, as evidenced by the outcry of support from common people of both parties. This may be one of the only issues that the far left and the far right actually agree on.