I guess we will have to see how Hong Kong plays out with their violent protests. Will China say “fuck it” and intercede with heavy force? Or will they come to a compromise? Or will Hong Kong gain more autonomy?
I’m still of the mind to sue for peaceful outcomes at every opportunity, but be aware that violence may be the last recourse.
They aren’t armed the way we were talking about “armed protest”.
Look at this goalpost moving nonsense:
Bats, bricks, shields, rocks, Molotov cocktail, etc are all arms.
If you want to say you weren’t talking about guns originally, despite all your original examples being actual firearms, then we can agree: Bringing guns to a protest in Hong Kong would be suicidal today.
But that’s what most guns are used for ultimately, anyway, I suppose.
Nope, circles right back to my original point:
There are different degrees of armed protest, and different degrees in responses.
And if one considers how powerful the Chinese military is, wouldn’t any protest be considered suicidal? They straight up murdered thousands in Tienanmen square. They’ve made thousands more “disappear”. China is an authoritarian government who doesn’t care at all about individual rights.
So with those facts in mind, shouldn’t any protest there be considered potentially suicidal?
Stop.
If you want to now say you retroactively meant Hong Kong protesters inflicting property damage, when you said “armed protestors”, then…
…you should probably admit that whoever said this was dead wrong:
First off, HK isn’t just property damage. They are fighting back against cops in riot gear and throwing flames at them. Don’t diminish their efforts.
A discussion has a path. Yes when I started it as about firearms, but then the subject broadened into violence against the government - which would include all violence, not just violence with firearms. And when expanding to include that, it again supports my point: There are different degrees of armed protest (violence), and different degrees in responses. Including armed protest that isn’t violent.
I guess I should alter my statement - because you’re right, nothing is ever iron clad, fool proof: “Who is less likely to get tear gassed and kettled? Equally armed protestors.”
That’s fine that you apparently don’t find violence against the government appropriate. You may say I am putting words in your mouth, but I asked you this directly, and you refused to answer because it was too general. But every attempt I’ve made to show an appropriate example of use has been hand waved away, so I can only logically conclude that is your stance. And that’s fine. You’re not alone in that stance, it’s a fine one.
My point is that sometimes violence is appropriate, there are different degrees to that violence (including armed non-violence), and different degrees of response to that violence or presentation of arms. The outcomes range from crushing defeat, to independence won, to lost causes that included battles won. I’ve repeatedly said I’d prefer peaceful solutions, but history is full of too many examples for me to conclude that resorting to violence against the government is never acceptable. That’s different than your opinion, but not necessarily wrong.
Have a good day!
I was very clear that your specific advice regarding armed protest was dangerous and irresponsible.
As you say, at that time it was advice about firearms.
Not a general “violence in every sense and degree, in every political movement across human history.”
Promoting the efficacy of guns at protests is still stupid, dangerous and ineffective advice for anyone seeking to improve society.
Your advice about firearms boils down to “If a person has a gun, they’ve made themselves safer in an interaction with cop” and that’s inane and dangerous.
Groups like the Oath Keepers and 3%ers like to talk about how it’s their duty to protect “The Constitution”, but does anyone really think that if those groups actually staged some kind of rebellion and took over seats of government that they would really be protecting everyone’s rights as stated in the constitution? Free assembly? Free speech? Freedom of religion? Chances are anyone on the left would be marked for death from the get-go, opposing political parties would be banned, Islam wold be banned, etc.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
