If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1515 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
5671 readers
2541 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was plenty of violence there, even in the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
Violence didn't result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn't just standing by and doing nothing, it's about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don't always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren't applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
"Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation." That's the context in which I'm speaking. That's the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.