We have to be ready to fight.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

We have to be ready, at all times, in all places, to fight. On the bus, in the school, at the mall, on the street. In chatrooms and forums and businesses and libraries. We have to be ready to fight at city hall and the state house and the commons and the grocery store.

We have to be ready to fight.

There is no peace that will hold forever, evil will never be vanquished. Our neighbors and co-workers and our family are all susceptible to the siren call of enemy ideology. Even we are not immune. We must put our stakes in the ground. We must hold our lines.

It is not enough to be merely "not evil." It has never been enough. We must be ready to fight, if we are able, because not everyone can. It's not enough to say it's someone else's problem, it's not enough to bite our tongues to keep the peace. It is not enough to defend the utopian ideal of tolerance at all costs.

If you tolerate hatred, you're an asshole.

We have to be ready to fight, even when our enemies hide their attacks behind "I'm only joking" and "free speech means awful speech." We have to be ready to fight when they invade the spaces we thought were safe. We cannot wait for the mods to wake up, we must take up arms ourselves.

We are the only ones we can count on.
We have to be ready to fight.

[hooplala]

Rah!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We have to be ready to fight, even when our enemies hide their attacks behind "I'm only joking" and "free speech means awful speech." We have to be ready to fight when they invade the spaces we thought were safe.

I am going to burn this into an oak plank and hang it on the wall.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We have to be ready, at all times, in all places, to fight. On the bus, in the school, at the mall, on the street. In chatrooms and forums and businesses and libraries. We have to be ready to fight at city hall and the state house and the commons and the grocery store.

We have to be ready to fight.

There is no peace that will hold forever, evil will never be vanquished. Our neighbors and co-workers and our family are all susceptible to the siren call of enemy ideology. Even we are not immune. We must put our stakes in the ground. We must hold our lines.

It is not enough to be merely "not evil." It has never been enough. We must be ready to fight, if we are able, because not everyone can. It's not enough to say it's someone else's problem, it's not enough to bite our tongues to keep the peace. It is not enough to defend the utopian ideal of tolerance at all costs.

If you tolerate hatred, you're an asshole.

We have to be ready to fight, even when our enemies hide their attacks behind "I'm only joking" and "free speech means awful speech." We have to be ready to fight when they invade the spaces we thought were safe. We cannot wait for the mods to wake up, we must take up arms ourselves.

We are the only ones we can count on.
We have to be ready to fight.

A-fucken-men.

[Bird Daughter]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

The window for conversation closed a while back, I think.  It's been people shouting past each other since 1992.

And I don't think we should use the minimum amount of violence, but rather the appropriate amount of violence, which are not always the same thing.

[Bird Daughter]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

The window for conversation closed a while back, I think.  It's been people shouting past each other since 1992.

And I don't think we should use the minimum amount of violence, but rather the appropriate amount of violence, which are not always the same thing.

The reason I say the minimum amount of violence is that its not just oppressors who will be harmed, but also the people - the ones who have been indoctrinated into defending their masters (i.e. most of them), and indeed our own.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

The window for conversation closed a while back, I think.  It's been people shouting past each other since 1992.

And I don't think we should use the minimum amount of violence, but rather the appropriate amount of violence, which are not always the same thing.

The reason I say the minimum amount of violence is that its not just oppressors who will be harmed, but also the people - the ones who have been indoctrinated into defending their masters (i.e. most of them), and indeed our own.

That's going to happen anyway, no matter what, over the next decade or two.  Doesn't matter who starts the violence or even if anyone does.

And, yanno, I'm not feeling very touchy-feely over the fates of the people who support the people and policies that are going to kill us all.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

The idea that set this thing off in my head was a story I heard about a relatively open, tolerant, LGBTQ+weirdoes-friendly online community that got infiltrated by alt-right douchebros, and when they finally revealed themselves the natives gave up and ceded the virtual territory. Personally, I think the distinction between punching someone and doxxing someone can't be described in terms of one being violent and the other being non-violent. I think it's wrong to have a definition of violence that begins and ends with "directly causing physical harm to the body of another human." Taking away someone's health coverage so they die is violent. Coaxing someone who is depressed and in crisis into killing themselves is violent. Refusing to convict vigilantes and police officers for killing black people is violent. Getting someone fired from their job for saying racist/sexist shit on twitter is violent.

I don't think violence in and of itself is wrong. I think there are varying degrees of violence and the most pragmatic way of dealing with the world is to be as non-violent as possible while protecting the space you take up, and defending the space of others if they are unable to protect themselves.

There's a poem I wrote a while back under the title "girl at the punk show" that I think is relevant here. I grew up in a very liberal town, with very passive (as in "non-violent") liberal parents. I grew up with the standard "violence is hitting people" definition, and I generally tried to be a good kid. So a few years back, when I went to my first punk show, it was bizarrely liberating to be in a space where shoving, hitting, and punching were not violence. At least, not an unacceptable kind of violence. If you want to hold your ground in that environment, you are going to have to fight for it, and everyone in that space by the stage knows this and accepts these rules of engagement.

Once you get your head around that, you can start looking at the world less in punching vs. not-punching and more in terms of appropriate force, escalation vs. de-escalation, and the right tool for the job.

[Bird Daughter]

I don't know if you mean 'fight' in a physical sense so forgive me if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a video I saw addressing people who think you can use pacifism towards violent oppressors ('terrorism' in this context just means 'militancy').
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25G_YO-S38

They say we need to think about the real world consequences of our violence. I say they need to consider the consequences of inaction towards large scale violence against innocents like law and wage slavery. We should try to use as little violence as possible, but most oppressors are not going to be convinced to give up their positions by talking to them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we need to have some real tactics prepared and with the threats of global warming, nuclear war, and day to day death and suffering, the window for conversation is rapidly closing.

The idea that set this thing off in my head was a story I heard about a relatively open, tolerant, LGBTQ+weirdoes-friendly online community that got infiltrated by alt-right douchebros, and when they finally revealed themselves the natives gave up and ceded the virtual territory. Personally, I think the distinction between punching someone and doxxing someone can't be described in terms of one being violent and the other being non-violent. I think it's wrong to have a definition of violence that begins and ends with "directly causing physical harm to the body of another human." Taking away someone's health coverage so they die is violent. Coaxing someone who is depressed and in crisis into killing themselves is violent. Refusing to convict vigilantes and police officers for killing black people is violent. Getting someone fired from their job for saying racist/sexist shit on twitter is violent.

I don't think violence in and of itself is wrong. I think there are varying degrees of violence and the most pragmatic way of dealing with the world is to be as non-violent as possible while protecting the space you take up, and defending the space of others if they are unable to protect themselves.

There's a poem I wrote a while back under the title "girl at the punk show" that I think is relevant here. I grew up in a very liberal town, with very passive (as in "non-violent") liberal parents. I grew up with the standard "violence is hitting people" definition, and I generally tried to be a good kid. So a few years back, when I went to my first punk show, it was bizarrely liberating to be in a space where shoving, hitting, and punching were not violence. At least, not an unacceptable kind of violence. If you want to hold your ground in that environment, you are going to have to fight for it, and everyone in that space by the stage knows this and accepts these rules of engagement.

Once you get your head around that, you can start looking at the world less in punching vs. not-punching and more in terms of appropriate force, escalation vs. de-escalation, and the right tool for the job.

I live in an extremely conservative town, I used to know a muslim kid at school who would get harassed everyday, being called a terrorist and that kind of thing. It might mot seem much the way I'm wording it but it was really bad, he endured a lot of psychological damage. One day he swung a punch at one of their faces and was expelled.

Perhaps we could take advantage of the fact that indirect violence is not seen as violence. Usually it flows from the powerful to the weak, but I'm sure we could find a way to target the ruling class in a violent campaign without gaining them sympathy or even notoriety. The question is how to utilize that in a useful way. Cyber attacks are one idea, but I think most people by now appreciate their impact.