The Pitfalls of Liberalism
The Pitfalls of Liberalism
Whenever one writes about a problem in the United States, especially concerning the racial atmosphere, the problem written about is usually black people, that they are either extremist, irresponsible, or ideologically naive.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not a big fan of the legitimizing violence, personally.
I think the identification of the problem as liberalism's impossible position between the oppressor and oppressed is spot on. But, rather than giving into endless violence, I'm prefer extending the precepts of liberalism without exception.
Liberals always make exceptions. For them, only the worthy poor deserve help, worthiness being arbitrarily determined by some pseudo-philanthropist laundering their savage public image through charity, for example. In the public sphere, we've been convinced that means-testing is an efficient way to distribute goods and resources, never mind the arbitrary power administrators have over those they administrate. Always exceptions.
So, just...get rid of exceptions.
Violence is the only thing that has ever destroyed oppression.
Violence, and the threat of violence, is the only way to make someone who is persecuting you for their own material benefit stop.
Is it not violent for a child to go to bed hungry in the richest country in the world? I think that is violent. But that type of violence is so institutionalized that it becomes a part of our way of life. (...) And that again is because the oppressor makes his violence a part of the functioning society. (...)
Now, I think the biggest problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. (...) once we see what the primary task of the liberal is, then we can see the necessity of not wasting time with him. His primary role is to stop confrontation. Because the liberal assumes a priori that a confrontation is not going to solve the problem. (...)
I think that history has shown that confrontation in many cases has resolved quite a number of problems (...) In many cases, stopping confrontation really means prolonging suffering.
The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. (...)
You cannot engage with the article in good faith without addressing the point that the system engages in passive but pervasive constant violence against minorities.
When you say you do not want to legitimize violence, you ignore their point that violence is nonetheless happening, and will not change through politely requesting those in charge, currently enabling or actively doing the violence, to stop it please. They are actively rewarded by inflicting violence on others through material gains. They have no good reason to stop, since it is already clear pesky morals are not getting in the way.
You state "we should just get rid of exceptions," but you have no actual proposal for convincing those with no reason to be convinced, e.g. the people in power. We are not in a void where everyone starts off on equal footing. We are in a world where pervasive violence is quietly carried out every minute of every day.
Police violence, overseas wars, cutting minorities off from basic needs, these are all things that quiet lawful protests and "voting really hard" have not budged.
Your argument is not at all engaging with this article's content.
My point is less to convince you to suddenly engage in good faith than to point out to onlookers how you are not. My suggestion to those onlookers is to read the actual article themselves, as it makes for some interesting reflection, regardless of agreement with it.
Who doesn't want peace? Not many.
One of the most difficult things for me to learn was that some people really prefer violence over more peaceful alternatives. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around it, but I accept it.
I've engaged with the articles core argument about the legitimatization of violence, but the only answer is more violence for some of you people.
Fight fire with fire and watch the whole world burn. Just like it is because of the oppressor's violence.
I have no interest in further talking to someone who brings up what the article counters with zero counterpoints, and just insists the original point progressively louder.
(Edit: Total comment rehaul to better explain my position, but similar sentiment.)
Passive violence only ever pretends to be peace. It is not.
You did not engage with the article's core argument. Nor did you engage with me explaining it to you. Nor did I expect you to.
I haven't stated my opinion on the article. I merely pointed out that you can't read.
that's because you're the person the article is talking about
Did you just read the first line of what I said?
Nah , I read all of it, and it's still a liberal position that offers nothing tangible or actionable.
What liberal position would?