this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
219 points (97.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43946 readers
533 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's definitely more complicated than this. A fundamental premise of enlightenment democracy is the establishment of a framework for the mediation of political power without the need for violence. So that ideal of nonviolence goes back much farther than both the US or the fourth estate, and it can be argued that it is actually a starting point for much of the modern world's political philosophy.

But in general, it doesn't take a ton of thought to imagine why cycles of political violence are unsustainable and unproductive. If violence becomes a primary form of political expression, then you will simply have every different group trying their hand. This is why we prescribe the state with a monopoly on violence - a principle even older than democracy.

That isn't to say that violence is never just. Ironically, contemporary existentialism tackles this issue pretty nicely by establishing some imperatives which revolve around the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. Primary among them is the acknowledgement that the most sustainable and desirable form of change is done through conversation with the oppressor (as in liberal democracy), and that anyone who rejects this imperative acts in bad faith, just as the oppressor does when they refuse to treat.

Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor, and understanding the heavy implications of this action is critical to just violence. De Beauvoir argues that idealism is therefore one critical aspect of justice in all forms, as it seeks, by nature, to preserve transcendent humanity in others. And this is the ambiguity of the freedom fighter - the classic dialectical struggle will always reduce itself to mystification because ideals are not fixed like the flesh, against which violence acts. Therefore, while violence can be just, it cannot be justice, because it does not directly serve any ideal. As such, our morality must be "opposed to the totalitarian doctrines which raise up beyond man the mirage of Mankind" and "freedom can only be achieved through the freedom of others."

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm talking specifically about modern media which is very plainly obviously propaganizing itself with the agenda I laid down. It's so obvious it's hard not to notice. Older media wasn't like that; there were anti-revenge stories back in the day but most were neutral or pro, and that only changed in like the mid 20th century when, for whatever dumbass reason, Hollywood and U.S. media in general decided to do this.

You don't even usually see it in other countries, though there are outliers like Hayao Miyazaki though that's easily chalked up to WW2 and how that war completely ratfucked Japan (and given what their government did, was well-deserved and a minority of their people like him knew it ...)

Simply put, to engage in violence is to ordain yourself the oppressor,

Oh, I get it. You're just one of those types out here defending it. ๐Ÿ˜•

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I'm literally quoting a very well known, in depth discussion of the issue from Ethics of Ambiguity

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Actually no, what you're doing is taking a specific claim about media exploiting nonviolence and using it as propaganda, to proselytize nonviolence itself, using an old book.

If what I am saying isn't true, why would you feel the need to do that?

Also, why would it even matter how old nonviolence is? I said media et al. is using nonviolence, not that they invented it.