this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
139 points (93.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43396 readers
1409 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."
Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."
This is literally the dictionary definition of advocating for something.
Advocate, verb, to publically suggest an idea, development or way of doing something.
I mean, I believe that, but that's not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy.
That's literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.
The 2nd argument there, the one you claim to be making, is advocating for political violence.
I don't think you're debating in good faith here.
How is saying "people will eventually fight if oppressed hard enough" the same as saying "oppressed people should fight their oppressors?"
The first statement is analysis of cause and effect, the second is advocacy. You're intentionally misframing it to spread a narrative.