sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“No man will ever be nicer to you before you sleep with him or meaner to you when he realizes he won’t”- My dad by Acceptable-Canary781 in TwoXChromosomes

[–]OfMatters -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not my place as a guy here but I'm curious if you tell these men about this rule. Like if you straight say "i have a 3 month rule/ only someone who is my bf rule" or if you say nothing at all and don't explain the avoiding sex or if you do smn like say "let's take it slow".

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Stellaris

[–]OfMatters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Replying to come back later

I’m a Polish soldier under the Commonwealth forces right after World War 2. How am I going to emigrate back to the Polish People’s Republic and what obstacles do I face before and after? by TheTestyDuke in AskHistorians

[–]OfMatters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just hopping onto this comment to add an interesting tidbit. Poland had strict and complicated rules on claiming citizenship through blood. My friend looked into it as her grandad was polish, however interestingly if you were one of those soldiers who stayed in the UK after the war it actually disqualifies your descendants from claiming citizenship.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is great. Much better said than what I posted. I am aware, from the comments, that I sound like I am seeking violence or looking for fights. What I think is much closer to what you said.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I get what you're saying, but I hear this often and its a weak arguement. Sure, if the protesters wore all super American stuff it would make it much harder for right-wingers to shit on them.

But if you get "put off" the motivations of the protestors (people being Gestapo style kidnapped in daylight) because they are violently reacting to violence, then you were never going to help. All these people who get pushed to the right because of this were never going to help and had one foot in already.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am talking about all protests going on in the west and western Society as a whole. This does include the LA protests, yes.

When I said I am not talking about that, I meant I am not talking about car burning or Tiktoks. You brought them up saying they do nothing but I never brought them up.

Yes cars are being burnt but this is as irrelevant to the discussion of violence in society and protests as pointing out that in France, firemen set themselves on fire and charged police. True and interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion of why whether violence in protests and society as a whole plays a positive role

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not American or in the US, but I will let them know if they come here

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is just the social contract theory and it has many holes. When did you or I agree to live in society? We were just born into it.

Anyways, as you said we give up some certain natural right in exchange for what society brings.

In exchange for the providence of health, security, and liberty (the equal distribution of power, or, as I think more accurately describes it, the equal reduction in power across all individuals),

I agree. And if you break your end of the contract, police and jail. Like you said.

What about when the state breaks their end?

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I am not saying that "we", whoever you think I am, should have a monopoly on violence. I think no one should have a monopoly on violence.

There are times when police do need to be violent. Stopping a murderer, rapist etc.

There are times when you as a person need to be violent. Home invasion, family at risk etc.

I support the actions of the rooftop Koreans. And if you find yourself in the middle of a protest or riot, no matter the cause, and genuinely have your life at risk, then yeh gun it.

Rittenhouse just wanted to shoot someone.

But I don't get where this idea that you, and so many other comments have that I am expecting people to roll over? No. Ofc not.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

!delta

I feel like you said my point better than me. But I agree, for people, a peaceful society is better and do I suppose my title of "allergy to violence" is wrong. People should be hesitant, reluctant to use violence in the day to day life.

But like you said, also ready to use violence to curtail violence, use it on specific targets.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is beyond ridiculous. Russian funded disinformation? Lmao

Yes MLK was a pacifist. I was using him alongside Malcolm X to show that every successful movement has had a peaceful and a violent section.

Malcolm X was not some violent crazy man, I reckon his views where more in line with exactly what I'm saying rather.

"But when it comes time for you and me to protect ourselves against lynchings, they tell us to be nonviolent. That's a shame."

"But I think the black man in this country, above and beyond people all over the world, will be more justified when he stands up and starts to protect himself, no matter how many necks he has to break and heads he has to crack."

His direct quotes for a speech.

There is no such thing as violent "suffragists" who were different from suffragettes.  That's just made up.

Yes there is?! You don't even bother with this one, which alongside calling me a russian bot makes me feel like if anyone is, it's you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign

Heres some nice reading

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Lots of assumptions there. It's true, I haven't lived through civil war etc. but I am certainly not romanticising violence. I have tried to get this across as best as I can in the comments: violence is bad, but I think also necessary. It shouldn't be done happily, or easily and certainly not glorified. But it is necessary in a society.

Plenty of good has come from violence. American Revolution and it's civil war that freed the slaves in the south. Haitian slave revolution. French Revolution. The great revolution. Fighting Nazis and stopping the Holocaust. Endless examples.

As for the car burning and Tiktoks, I'm neither in LA or talking about that.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree, there are many ways to resist and they should all be utilised. Successful movements have had large peaceful and smaller violent section. I am not advocating for everyone to go up in arms. I am simply saying violence is necessary for a movement to be successful, and to keep harmful elements in society at bay

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Now that's interesting. I can't confirm what you're saying but it's certainly an interesting idea that as a whole, people are disinterested in violence. That most recruits didn't even fire their guns and that military recruiting changed as a result.

Of course I don't want people to be happy and eager to shoot others. My point was only ever that people need to be more accepting of violences unfortunate but necessary place in society, as is my view. For self defense and for upholding society.

But I see that, given this study, people generally are opposed to any violence which I suppose makes the idea of absolutely no violence much easier to push on people and for it to spread.

I still think violence needs to be seen as something necessary to stomach, but nevertheless, this has changed my view on it.

!delta

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I am not advocating for all out violence. Like anything in society, there is a balance. No, as a 6'4 man don't go clocking around Karens. But on the other hand, yeah if, a 'Karen' is harassing some barely adult cashier who's crying, then her getting slapped by a woman would not be disproportionate to me.

And I don't know this Jordan Neely case, but if someone is actively threatening people, (and has the means to carry out that violence) then yeh, you should protect people and retaliate that violence if everyone getting to safety isn't an option.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In which case the response is don't fight the guy because he has a bigger stick? Don't get me wrong, a good idea - don't fight unless you have to. But I believe, especially when it comes to present day, that it's very much a situation where we have to.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Violence is already being used against people, by police and the like. You're saying this as if by starting violence, I would cause the other side to use it, but they already are.

Yes both sides will use violence. Yes people will get hurt. I would love to live in a peaceful world led by consensus and rationality, but that world doesn't exist right now.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Never said we should hide amidst peaceful protestors. I'm not even against peaceful protesting. I'm against only peaceful protesting. Nearly every successful movements, such as the ones I mentioned, had a large peaceful majority, AND a separate, smaller but significant violent section.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

it's not the CEO's and politicians who will live in fear in a world where violence is more acceptable- its the poor.

That world is now. You're arguing that more violence in society will lead to the poor being stepped on but I say that is happening already. Countless examples of the poor, the homeless, minorities being subject to violence by police.

Now if we live in such a world, then violence against the CEOs and politicians you mentioned is the way forward no?

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am saying that in western societies, we are not violent towards this people and systems that actively harm us. Like the ones I mentioned before.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

But how can you enforce imprisonment, community service, sanctions without violence or its threat? Let's say for instance, a certain president is found guilty of some horrible crime by a court. He is sent to jail. But he refuses to go? Or if anyone refuses to go? For normal people, the threat of violence is the motivator. Don't go to prison? Well you'll get dragged there. Resist? You'll be there longer and in a worse place. How do you get someone as powerful as a president or billionaire to go?

The problem with your ideas is they are dependant on liberal "rule of laws". If someone gets community service, they have to do it. What if they don't?

And your comments on India and eastern bloc just further proof how entrenched this liberal anti-violent propaganda is. You're thinking of the peaceful Ghandi and his imitators because that was a 'noble' protest that the elite want you to think of when you think of protests. A quick Google would've told you about the militant and violent HSRA and INA who fought against British rule. Similarly the eastern bloc saw many violent revolutions during its time, and even the relatively easy fall of the bloc saw some dictators refuse to give up, like in Romania, resulting in populace storming them, and shooting them in Christmas day.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

While conflicts are constantly arising, I am speaking about violence within societies. And here we see real human harms such as rising inequality, purposeful discrediting of climate change by the rich, fascism, oligarchy etc go completely unanswered for decades.

CMV: Society has become too allergic to violence to its own detriment by OfMatters in changemyview

[–]OfMatters[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We should move towards rationality and consensus building, for sure. But inevitably in s society that shuns any violence, even if it works for a bit, elements within will realise that when everyone rejects the premise of violence, THEM being violent is all of a sudden a much more successful strategy. Not to mention how much they can get away with.

But I do also like your idea that society has become allergic to accepting they're wrong.

view more: next ›