I do not know how long this post will last. It is intended not to advocate violence, but to

[Atticus]

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2022, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

analogize it to intolerance.

It is often pointed out and easily understood that if we insist on tolerance with "no exceptions", we---the tolerant--- will be destroyed.

The question I would pose is: Are there not times and circumstances that justify the use of violence in response to violence or the imminent threat of violence?

To those who easily answer that "self defense" is the only exception, I think I agree. BUT, must we wait for those who admit their intent to destroy us to "actually" open fire before our use of violence against them qualifies as "self defense"?

I believe there are a variety of reasonable answers to those questions and I don't think there are any that are helpful in all situations.

I hope some agree, but welcome all comments.

[Walleye]

1. For the use of force I believe in the "clear and present danger" requirement

[samnsara]

2. i agree...

[kentuck]

3. Every precaution should be taken to defend yourself...

...before resorting to violence.

[sanatanadharma]

8. Starting with a "clear understanding" of the "self" that one is defending

Everyone claims to know their self, but apart from the obviously changing body wrapper, the constant "self" is very hard to pin down.
One might say that one's self is actually unknowable as the self-conscious self can not be revealed by the five senses or science.

The Bhgavad Gita expounds upon this human dilemma of desire, defense, action, inaction, killing, dying and self-identity.

[panader0]

13. I read Alan Watts in the late 60's including "The Book on the Taboo Against

Knowing Who you Are". He wrote extensively about Zen, and I too became very interested in Zen and
have several books on the subject.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Check out the other thread regarding the paradox of intolerance.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217456578

[Atticus]

11. Thank you. nt

[KS Toronado]

34. Thanks for the meme & article link

The right is intolerant of a lot of things....
Free and fair elections
CRT
Background checks
Red flag laws
Anyone not straight, white, & with their brand of Christianity
List is long and includes minor things like M&Ms and Dr. Seuss

[Mysterian]

5. Tolerance extends to all actions that do not hurt others or the community

Do your thing, just don't hurt other people.

Any action that hurts individuals or the community must be stopped. By whatever means.

[Probatim]

6. If we had a fully functioning judicial/law enforcement system, you wouldn't have to pose that...

question.

As we've seen, the right and its domestic terrorists get lighter sentences or a free pass compared to liberals or POC. For instance, the latest criminal charged on 1/6 received 5 years for beating a cop. We all know that sentence is far less than you'd expect from a black man standing up to a cop, let alone beating him.

The right's leadership gets a free pass entirely.

Law enforcement routinely ignores threats from domestic terrorists and this further emboldens them. Additionally, social media platforms allow them a place to gather and discuss plans for violence and intimidation. No policing by the sites' moderators further emboldens them.

So we see these terrorists going after librarians (Columbus drag book reading), physicians/hospitals (hospitals in Boston and Pittsburgh receiving bomb threats tied to care of transgender children/teens), and the list of their "enemies" goes on and on.

At what point will law enforcement act on these threats? At what point will citizens push back on these threats (knowing the costs of escalation at the hands of both terrorists and law enforcement)?

It's sad, terrifying, and frustrating. It's not the country any of us ever expected to live in.

[CrispyQ]

7. +1

Like Elie Mystal says, we have the laws we just don't enforce them equally.

[uponit7771]

14. +1, could you imagine if Muslims were acting like MAGA acts right now? There would be mass ...

... incarcerations daily !!

[Probatim]

17. The same would have been true if Muslims/POC raided the Capitol on 1/6.

Law enforcement turned water cannons (in the middle of winter) on Native Americans who were trying to protect their water supplies.

They'd still be hosing blood off the Capitol steps if anyone but whites had lost their minds thanks to trunt.

[Scrivener7]

21. I think your post is the answer. We have the laws that should keep intolerance in check, but

we don't enforce them.

You ask at what point law enforcement will act on these threats. The problem is, our non-enforcement has created a law enforcement that is the instrument of the intolerance.

The penalties for those terrorists you list need to be swift and severe. As should have been the penalties for EVERYONE involved in 1/6. Anything less emboldens the terrorists and exacerbates the problem. Which, in practice, is what we have done.

We are in a very dangerous moment in our history.

[area51]

25. +1 n/t

[Tetrachloride]

9. I had a good neighborhood in the countryside.

neighbors are the key to law in my experience.

After some life changes, i didn’t know any neighbors except 1 family and 1 refugee.

[BComplex]

10. Atticus, I'm hoping the thread stays up, too, because it's something I've wondered a lot about

And there are some good and thoughtful replies so far. I've always felt like our "tolerance" was going to get us all killed, but the fact that law enforcement is in on the problem from the wrong side is totally key to the problem.

[uponit7771]

12. K&R, isn't it against the law to threaten someone with violence? Thx in advance

[Firestorm49]

15. The Germans apparently know how to deal with it.

[nightwing1240]

16. A great man once said

"Violence begets violence; hate begets hate; and toughness begets a greater toughness. It is all a descending spiral, and the end is destruction — for everybody. Along the way of life, someone must have enough sense and morality to cut off the chain of hate." -Martin Luther King Jr.

I agreed then and still do. If I would have to kill to live, I would rather die than living with the knowledge I took someones life. Now in the situation of protecting family and loved ones, I would make an exception but even then I would not fire upon unless fired at. And I have never owned a gun so a bit of a moot point for me.

[sanatanadharma]

19. Arjuna was faced with the problem of his family and loved ones dying

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna faced the situation of protecting some family and loved ones and killing others.
The answer is not easy.

[nightwing1240]

35. it certainly is not

[Atticus]

22. If I would have to kill to live, I would rather die than living with the knowledge I took someones

life."

I cannot even begin to understand that attitude. Some would say that proves you are a much better person than I am and they may well be right.

That said, I believe that self-defense is the natural and instinctive response to a perceived threat to one's life.

[Prairie_Seagull]

28. Forget ones self for a moment.

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2022, 02:56 PM - Edit history (2)

Would you kill/stop threat to protect your kids? I would argue that this is a biological imperative.

[lostnfound]

29. Often also natural to save one's child even at cost of one's own life

Because the value of the child’s life has become more important than one’s own self, to one’s self.
It is the power of love embedded in that instinct.
If one has a deep spiritual life, maybe for some that spiritual life becomes like their child, also loved. With greater intensity than life itself.
There is joy in becoming less trapped in the rat race life of being human. Self preservation led many Germans to ‘go with the flow’ of the prevailing twisted ideology. In such instances it takes bravery to choose an ideal over self-preservation.

[nightwing1240]

36. I am better than no one

and far below millions of others. We are all human and permitted to make our own choices. Other than blocking and tackling other guys on a football field, I have never struck a single person. Man, woman or child. I even brake for squirrels. That is being thoughtful and I am not the only person like that, there are loads of us

[arlyellowdog]

26. Thank you, thank you, thank you

Whenever I shake my head because I stopped scrolling on DU because of a post like this, I look at the comments to see if a DU commenter will restore my faith in the DU community. Dr. MLK Jr. words live on. Violence could not triumph.

[nightwing1240]

37. "Violence could not triumph"

Quite the man, the Reverend Martin Luther King!

[GenXer47]

18. too generalized

These sorts of questions don't do well in the abstract.
When the FBI, for example, considers a threat, it has to be "credible". So you can post that you're going to do harm to a senator, but if they can rule out gun possession, maybe you don't have a car, maybe you're 7 years old...you're not gonna get much more than a stern warning.
Leave policing to the police! It's never ok to arm yourself in anticipation of some sort of "civil war". You're not really gonna do it, and all you've done is add more guns to the ever-growing gun pool, and guns live forever. They are cumulative. If we continue on this track there will be a billion guns in the US by 2035.

[IronLionZion]

20. When they go low, we go high

so we must allow them to shoot us in the torso and heart while we aim for the sky

[Lonestarblue]

23. I believe the answer to intolerance is not violence unless it is truly a last resort.

We all believe in free speech but also recognize how the right has used their claims to free speech to pervert rational discussion and to stoke hatred. For me, the answer to the intolerance on the right is education and a concerted effort to recruit younger generations who are more tolerant because of their life experiences to our cause. I accept that we will not be able to reach a significant population of those who are thoroughly part of the MAGA cult, and they are the ones more likely to use violence.

But I do not believe we can or should ignore this intolerance until more violence occurs. So what do we do? If I were still in corporate land, I would form a task force of knowledgeable people with differing experiences to brainstorm ideas and develop a plan of action with specific responsibilities. While we’re not a corporation, we have a lot of diversity and knowledge on this platform. Is there a way to have a virtual task force that collects ideas and helps develop a plan? We can each contact members of Congress, but individuals have far less influence than a group. How many members does DU have, and is there a way to use our numbers to gain change?

[LudwigPastorius]

24. "must we wait until those who admit their intent to destroy us to "actually" open fire before our...

use of violence against them qualifies as "self defense"?"

In determining whether an individual would pose an actual and imminent threat, the factors to be considered include: The duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the length of time before the potential harm would occur.

[llashram]

27. exactly, I agree

self-defence is implied in all situations where aggressively accosted whether by police, or your everyday racist who still believes that trump gave them the right to accost anyone, not like him or her. Carrying with CCW walk into a store and the bad guy, him or her, turns their weapon on you.

And on and on with thousands of scenarios...

[hadEnuf]

30. To be in the right, we must wait until a threat is imminent before resorting to violence.

In other words, they have to try and draw "first blood" in a situation before we can respond in-kind.


But - that does not mean that we can't prepare, perhaps arm, and be on guard for this potentially violent scum. They think we are a bunch of pushovers that they can just terrorize and harm on whim. They need to understand that we too can respond in kind and with equal force to whatever they plot. They aren't so bold when they know that as they are mostly cowards anyway.

The thought of needing to carry a firearm in response to this terrorism absolutely sickens me, but the alternative could be winding up as their victims instead.

[Warpy]

31. I'm a woman and I've spent most of my life living alone

in one big city or another. I've had to face a lot of attempted violence and I hate it.

I do enough damage to make him or them let go so I can get away. Otherwise, I'm non violent. I'd rather duck and leave.

The only blood sport I like is Battlebots.

[rubbersole]

32. Think Kyle Rittenhouse coming down the street...

.. and you're armed with a skateboard...

[Slammer]

33. not many will remember 2016

but Trump didn't actually win enough delegates to get the Republican presidential nomination.

Roger Stone threatened to give out convention delegate hotel room assignments to the Trump mob so that the non-Trump delegates would be roughed up and otherwise "encouraged" to abandon their commitments (many enforced by their state law) and vote for Trump instead.

I spoke to 5-6 of them who were getting emailed death threats and others who were worried about their physical safety at the convention.

I gave the ones who were getting death threats the proper link to the FBI division which covered those crimes and told them what evidence they'd need to preserve.

For the ones worried about their physical safety, I gave them a link to a website which sells stainless steel walking canes.

There's no federal or state regulations which makes anyone prove they need a cane to walk. And you can take those suckers right through airport security then right onto the convention floor with no problems.

It turned out to not be a problem at the convention because the RNC at the last moment secretly cut a deal with Trump to ignore their own rules and give him the nomination without him having to earn it. But the threat of widespread political violence in support of Trump was around at least as early as July 2016....

[sanatanadharma]

38. Krishna's answer to Arjuna's dilemma

Following up a bit on my comments in posts 8 & 19, I return to the Gita.

For years prior to throwing down his bow and slumping into a panic attack on his chariot, Arjuna had be itching for a fight; he had grievances (pretty good ones too). But now, this brave warrior wanted to run away from the blood to be shed on the fields of Kurukshetra.

Krishna told Arjuna to suck it up, saying all that was about to unfold was due to desires. Arjuna's desires and those of his cousins who had usurped the throne.
The desires led to actions, the actions had consequences and the results were out of Arjuna's control.

Krishna also explained how to avoid such dramas in the future, clarifying many common human errors and explicating an entire life-style of self-defense without being defensive, offensive, or confused about the nature of "self-defense".

[Martin Eden]

39. If I understand you correctly

You are suggesting preemptive violence may be necessary and therefore justified to prevent others from "destroying us."

In practical terms it is necessary to define exactly what "destroying us" means and what specific violent actions need to be taken against which individuals to stop that from happening.

We should also be aware there are thousands if not millions of heavily armed righting yahoos who fantasize about using their 2A joysticks against people they've been conditioned to hate.

And they won't be very judicious in selecting their targets. Escalation of violence in the civil war they have been itching for would claim many innocent lives.

Ultimately, "justify" means that which truly achieves justice.

The scenario I envision ensuing from preemptive violence on our part would inflict horrible injustice far outside the realm of our original intent.

[Fla_Democrat]

40. Order 66?

To use a line from Vol'jin.... "If it be war you bring, then I stand against you."

[I_UndergroundPanther]

41. All I have is my integrity

As I define it.

Intolerant people can traumatize the fuck out of people rending them sometimes stuck in the freeze fawn response to imminent danger.

I would take out a sadist,an abuser,a rapist ,a pedo,a person who thinks they should get away with destroying peoples lives with trauma.

I have C-PTSD

Trauma has cut my life into less of the potential I had if I was not traumatized.
It is torture to feel and remember.
It has been decades and I feel the horrible feelings like they happened yesterday
And I have a whole bunch of other symptoms that hurt and interfere with my life, self esteem and well being.

I am 100% against abuse.

Trauma can cause torture someone for a lifetime.It does for me.

Innocent people being set up via trauma to be tortured for a long time.. demands I act to stop the perpetrator to disarm,distract and fight back to ,death if necessary.

I would feel no guilt killing a sociopath or an abusive narcissist bully hellbent on causing trauma and destroying people.

Trauma can fuck up the lives of an entire country if no one stands up to prevent or stop it. Unresolved trauma can lead to so much damage to the body,mind and soul.

I vowed to myself not to be a bystander.
There were bystanders as I yelled for help suffering trauma. I chose to never be a bystander.

[Kaleva]

42. How do you define "to destroy us"

Are we talking about getting our throats cut or are we talking about getting banned from Facebook?