Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
There are people on both political sides who vehemently advocate for violent revolution. I've heard leftists who want to take to engage in offensive violence against hate groups, Trump supporters, large multinational corporations, and right wing politicians. I've heard right wingers-- typically gun nuts-- who want to shoot at anyone who threatens to take away their guns, who trespasses on their land, or who says anything that offends them.
There are many problems with a violent ideology, first and foremost being that violent revolution is far less likely to succeed. In the violent revolutions throughout history, you always end up with someone far worse taking power, for the simple reason that they were willing to use violence to get their way and proved better at it than the previous regime. This doesn't bode well for the ordinary people under their rule, as those who seize power through bloodshed are more likely to use the same methods to hold on to power.
A violent revolution is essentially a civil war. In any war, the poorest people suffer first, and suffer the most. The rich wage wars using poor people's lives. Advocating for violence is a very elitist thing to do. Violent revolution always involves, whether intentionally or not, throwing those weaker than yourself into the front as human sacrifices.
The gun nuts who think that owning a ton of firearms and being able to poke holes in target paper makes them ready to fight a revolution, they're good for exactly one thing in a violent revolution, and that's dying en masse. I'd estimate that 99% of the people advocating for violent revolution would end up screaming and running around in circles if a civil war actually broke out. Beau of the Fifth Column lays it out here:
Ask yourself. Do you have any kind of combat training? What about martial arts or self-defense? Have you ever fired a gun? Would you know what to do if someone else started firing a gun? I ask, because if you actually had any kind of combat training, you'd likely be far more reluctant to use it, or be thrust into any kind of situation where it's necessary to use it. People who fantasize about violence, and who think violence is a means to solve their problems, have absolutely no clue what it actually involves.
I've often joked about punching people like Ted Cruz or Ajit Pai in the face. I wouldn't want to literally punch them in the face. When you hit someone with your fists, you injure your fists. Even if you have perfect form, there are so many unpredictable factors, especially in the heat of a fight. Guaranteed you're not walking away from the fight without injury to your hands. It doesn't matter that Ted Cruz looks like his face is made of slabs of lard, it still wouldn't be a good idea to actually punch him.
The same goes for gun nuts who think that owning an AR and 300 rounds makes them invincible. My questions for them are, do you have any body armor? Do you know how to use concealment or cover? If not, you're going down before you even know you're being shot at. In a real gunfight, you're not taking careful aim at a stationary target and squeezing off the perfect shot, like in a video game or at the target range. You're firing wildly in the general direction of where you think the enemy is, and there's no way to know, because people are constantly running around. There will be innocent bystanders running around too. In an actual war situation, on a battlefield, you will practically never see the enemies you're shooting at, or who are shooting at you. The threat could come from anywhere in 360 degrees, at any elevation or angle. You can fire 500,000 bullets and never hit anything. That's not even factoring in the severe mental stress and the adrenaline clouding your judgment. Friendly fire incidents happen all the time. You could be shot and killed and never know where the shot came from.
Real life violence, whether with guns or hand to hand combat, is nothing like it's depicted in Hollywood movies or in video games. Movies and video games are fantasy escapism. Anyone who was raised properly knows there's a huge difference between the violence there and the violence in real life. This is why it's a fallacy to blame violent entertainment for mass shootings, the way both Republicans and corporate Democrats have done.
War is incredibly messy and imprecise. You're not going to take out specific individuals. You're going to kill a lot of innocent bystanders to take down one legitimate threat. Then that's assuming you don't get killed early on yourself. War destroys innocent lives, and nobody comes out unharmed. Soldiers who come back from war have PTSD and often crippling physical injuries. We have homeless veterans who are crippled and can't find work.
Nobody on the left should be advocating for violent revolution, because that's the same thing as advocating for war, and you can't be on the left if you're pro-war.
Cousin Ricky and Aging Disgracefully like this
The new Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Massacre a crowd of civilians, draw a target around them, and declare they were all terrorists.