Obligatory: I DO condone violence
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
127 points (93.2% liked)
Anarchism
2884 readers
27 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I do condone violence in self defense, such as against imminent threats including the mass murder of people in the pursuit of profits.
I don't condone violence in general though.
Asking someone if they support violence is like asking if they support the coriolis effect. It's a fact of life, not just for humans but every living thing, that we have to deal with sometimes. It's a nonsensical question in most contexts.
Better to ask if someone supports self-defense against violence.
In this case, if they support self-defense against institutional violence.
In popular discourse the word "condone" has been conflated with the word "advocate." These are two different concepts. A pacifist can condone violence while advocating for nonviolence, and Gandhi did exactly that saying that violence is acceptable when no other options exist.
You know, just so we're all on the same page about words having meaning.
They are worried about being sued by Nintendo
Usually you mention a full name once (as done in the second paragraph) and then only use the last name. Fairly sure that's how it goes for all normal articles. You see the same thing on Wikipedia. I do think the slogan should've been mentioned, though.
True. This post is not telling the whole truth.
this post is not "telling", it is questioning!
The answer to any headline that's a question is "No".
not necessarily.
Well, your post confirms the law
not necessarily
Except that it does. The answer to the question in your title is No.
if i make another post with the title
"Is the lemming earphone843 mature enough to participate in our conversations?"
the reply, according your rule, would be "no".
right?
You just didn't read the article carefully.
i did. I always do.
agreed.
previous articles from different journalists, still from theGuardian, were doing exactly that
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/23/luigi-mangione-court-charges
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/21/luigi-mangione-racism-media
looking at Vargas' article titles, maybe it's coming from him. He routinely uses this pattern : https://www.theguardian.com/profile/ramon-antonio-vargas
@sibbo@sopuli.xyz, you're probably right. But the above articles were fairer, imo
Nah, it's a standard journalism style.
