434
Protesters blockade Palantir offices over tech firm’s ‘totalitarian’ work with ICE
(www.independent.co.uk)
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
Look, people here seem to think that I am crying over what happens to Palantir. I'm not. What concerns me is that people genuinely seem to believe that destruction of buildings is perfectly compatible with the word "peace".
If you are going to advocate for a non-peaceful act, then don't shy away from what you are doing. Claiming that what you are doing is peaceful even though it involves blowing up things seems to me like inherently lying to yourself to make yourself feel better. It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.
I know that I am probably wasting my time, it's just that so much of the hell we are going through in the U.S. is the result of people believing in stories that they tell themselves about what they are doing in order to make themselves feel better, rather than evaluating things critically, and I really wish there were less of this mentality in the world...
three paragraphs of bullshit.
You did not have to go out of your way to admit your lack of reading comprehension, but I appreciate you for doing so anyway! 😆
i read it, its just all nonsense. this non-violent solution bullshit needs to get lost. You are part of the problem.
What "non-violent solution bullshit"? I never said that violence was never an acceptable solution (in fact, nor did I even use the word "violence"), just that it should be called what it is.
But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?
you sure fucking insinuated that it was.
Nope, that was entirely an invention on your part. Recall that my actual words were:
If, after examining it critically, you decide to go ahead, then so be it; you just shouldn't skip that step because blowing things up is kind of a big deal, even when merited.
(Believe it or not, I actually try my best to choose my words carefully in order to convey my position as clearly as possible; I cannot help the fact that people do not seem to put as much care into reading them in return.)
By I am extremely curious about how you would respond to the question in my comment, though:
I would also add that if the answer to the first question is "none", then: why not?