Like come on, the problem with the world isn’t that we’re too open to violence. That is an ur-liberal take. The problem is that violence is unjustly distributed and allows some people’s flourishing at the expense of so many others.
actually yes, the problem is that the working class is in fact not open enough to doing the necessary violence to undue this state of affairs. So we are in fact not open enough to violence.
Like, I absolutely would agree that unnecessary gratuitous violence isn’t really justified, but like John Brown specifically really was not gratuitous. Bro like shot adult slaveowners, that like barely even registers as violent in the scale of human history. I can buy the idea that killing the Romanov children was wrong but even then it was done for a practical reason regardless of if you disagree with it (removing any or all counter-revolutionary figureheads). They weren’t just shooting kids because they were so pissed at them and thought their ideology justified treating them as inhuman. Now they were probably still wrong because people like the emperor the PRC rehabilitated have existed and proven that it isn’t necessary, but I don’t know the full circumstances of the time so I can’t really say how people felt then.
john brown apologists
mods delete this user (well actually probably just warn FungiDebord, banning seems like a lot for something that small but still)
why are you calling for my banning? i too consider myself a john brown apologist. did you read my post?
the point that was I was responding to, or, at least, what I took the point to be, perhaps erroneously, was: “Inglourious Basterds would be good, if the message of the film was: the audience who is watching the film, who is enjoying the violence, is just like the German audience, within the film, watching the propaganda film, who is enjoying that same violence – therefore, the audience who is watching IG, qua their enjoyment of violence, is just like the nazis.”
actually yes, the problem is that the working class is in fact not open enough to doing the necessary violence to undue this state of affairs. So we are in fact not open enough to violence.
Like, I absolutely would agree that unnecessary gratuitous violence isn’t really justified, but like John Brown specifically really was not gratuitous. Bro like shot adult slaveowners, that like barely even registers as violent in the scale of human history. I can buy the idea that killing the Romanov children was wrong but even then it was done for a practical reason regardless of if you disagree with it (removing any or all counter-revolutionary figureheads). They weren’t just shooting kids because they were so pissed at them and thought their ideology justified treating them as inhuman. Now they were probably still wrong because people like the emperor the PRC rehabilitated have existed and proven that it isn’t necessary, but I don’t know the full circumstances of the time so I can’t really say how people felt then.
mods delete this user (well actually probably just warn FungiDebord, banning seems like a lot for something that small but still)
why are you calling for my banning? i too consider myself a john brown apologist. did you read my post?
the point that was I was responding to, or, at least, what I took the point to be, perhaps erroneously, was: “Inglourious Basterds would be good, if the message of the film was: the audience who is watching the film, who is enjoying the violence, is just like the German audience, within the film, watching the propaganda film, who is enjoying that same violence – therefore, the audience who is watching IG, qua their enjoyment of violence, is just like the nazis.”
i disagree with this, as gestured at above.