zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.

Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.

edit: be

>>iugtmk+0e
> Once it starts and everyone joins, it will very, very hard to stop

More directly, when violence becomes a normalized means of politics, it doesn’t benefit the bourgeoisie.

>>JumpCr+Je
Cross, I know we interacted before. I sincerely hope you do not advocate that ends justify the means. "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine ( more resources at their disposal to ensure that happens ). They always are fine. You know who actually does suffer? Regular people.

>>iugtmk+kf
Regular people suffer no matter what the problem is, they have always been the front line to blunt the effects of economic, political, or military tolls. The whole reason people resort to political violence is to inflate a problem so large that not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it. If someone feels they are suffering or dead without doing anything, then suffering or dieing from actually taking action against your perceived oppressors seems like a decent option.

>>AngryD+jm
> not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it

The bourgeoisie can't. The aristocracy can. That's the point.