But if it's any consolation the population is shrinking... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/25/britains-shorter-children-reveal-a-grim-story-about-austerity-but-its-scars-run-far-deeper
]]>Even if your project is to fuck everything up beyond all measure. Or looting the state. You know, I don't think it's fair to call that kind of realism cynicism. At this point a cynical attitude would be more like "they're doing their best, they're just not very good at it". Or would that be delusional? It's so hard to tell in this post-reality Britain.
]]>And Mastodon. And for this I'm curious about how it has gone for Charlie's switch and his thoughts on the subject.
And from my point of view I think he spot on in terms of why people pick devices and services. And why the "better" tech tends to fail so often. No matter how much those choices piss off people who think of themselves as all knowing. (I'm a bit in this category myself.)
]]>If your cause demands violence, you've lost my support.I'm sure the ghost of Jean-Jacques Dessalines is devastated, but understands.
Slavery is a form of violence, sometimes leading to death. Could resisting violence be just a basic act of survival? When is it justified to let violence continue?
Are there any moral philosophers in the house? (Or the Kremlin? Mar-a-Lago? "Deploy the categorical imperative!")
I hear the British military now have lawyers advising them on the legality of their actions during armed conflicts. Some others are also considering the consequences of their actions. I think that's a small step in the right direction. You never know, the practice might spread.
]]>Don't worry, I think I understand your point well enough. ;)
]]>Correct.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that some actions may be justified - resisting fascism in the 1940s, for example. I can also see the points made by people who object to the use of certain specific weapons on civilians. It's sometimes fascinating to see this happening today, as much as it is also horrifying. (I sometimes read the arguments made in Parliament. So many fallacious arguments. Ugh.)
Now I wonder about arguments made by lawyers advising generals etc. Where is the record of that, and who can read it?
It's much easier to read about historical examples, like the Cuban missile crisis. When people now talk about the risk of deploying tactical nukes in Ukraine or Belarus, I'm reminded of Castro. None of our arguments - or anyone else's - have much traction with such people.
]]>A very interesting question, in the context of your original quote and the history of Northern Ireland.
]]>Dude, you're the one arguing that violence can never be justified, except maybe possibly sometimes you're sympathetic to it but you're not sure when. It's a fascinating ideal, but without an actual argument it's not a very interesting discussion.
I've worked with people who are philosophically opposed to "all" violence (Quakers) but nonetheless will use or solicit violence in self-defence. Reading Quaker discussions of whether it's possible to be a Christian and a police officer are interesting, especially in colonies where the police were established specifically to eliminate first nations (or in the US also as slave-catchers (that doesn't make things better!)). Mostly they seem to agree that calling the police, or otherwise using the legal system to enforce their desires, is reasonable in many cases.
But they at least have principles and arguments to back their position. You don't even have a clear position.
]]>So I keep coming back to the same point I reached over 4 decades ago, and the question: How can we resolve conflicts without the use of violence? While I may suggest non-zero-sum thinking, it's already too late by the time the violence begins. As a teenager, nobody advocating violence won my support. Nobody was talking about the history, everyone was using fallacious arguments, and everything lead to more violence. That made it very easy to reject all the arguments. It still does. Now, however, I also hear arguments that some violence may be "just" - like using deadly force to resist people determined to kill you. I don't recall hearing that argument when I was a teen.
I even remember a PM arguing in Parliament for a war to stop a foreign government from using poison gas on their own citizens. He lost that vote. The war didn't happen. News media soon moved on to other atrocities. More arguments followed. More fallacies.
OGH makes far better arguments. That's a part of why I buy his books and not theirs. Most people here make better arguments too. That's why I read this blog and not others. Etc etc.
This is not a zero-sum game.
]]>I said I can't support it. I also acknowledge that other people make strong arguments to for justifying some violence. I've even suggested how they make those arguments. However, I am not making those arguments.
You may be reading a little too much into my comments here. Don't worry, I blame zero-sum thinking. I've seen that happen for decades. I've seen people lose all reason and descend into verbal abuse (the ad hominem fallacy). One of the many things I like about this blog is the zero-tolerance moderation for that.
So, I can see two extreme positions on this issue, and a lot of other arguments across the spectrum. At one extreme is the moral philosopher's, that no violence is justified (the one you seem to be attacking). At the other extreme is "whatever it takes, for our cause" argument. I think we're both some way between those positions, but you may be finding some arguments more pursuasive than I do. My point is that whether we agree or not, there are other people at the two extremes, and will never agree with each other or any of us.
Whoops. What a mess!
]]>Or possibly have experienced so much violence that they can't conceive of other ways to solve problems.
]]>