zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
> So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it.

Taboos around violence for political are one of the crucial building blocks for a functioning democracy. If those taboos are broken, even for a good cause, you set a precedence that violence works. And the next cause won’t be as good. One only has to look at the lessons of the Roman Revolution that started with the murder of Grachus, and ended with an Emperor who everyone acclaimed as they were so tired of the bloodshed.

>>RcouF1+pg
I don't condone violence, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that modern American democracy was built on the foundation of political violence. It worked for us.

>>nradov+ck
You do not use violence in a democratic protest. To use it is effective acknowledgement that you either want to destroy the democracy or do not believe that it actually exists on the moment.

>>marcos+Lq
The American revolution was a violent protest.

>>evanli+Bs
It was actually seeking to overthrows the government, and it was treason from the eyes of the British. If the British had won, likely every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been hanged or worse.

If you want to change the way things are inside the system vote, organize, protest. But actually seeking to overthrow the government is opening a whole can of very, very bad things.