Hacker News Reader

Comment by a-posteriori | Hacker News Reader

Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.

View on HN

Violence is not categorically bad, I don't think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences.

I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)

It doesn't matter if violence is necessary, it is still bad

What does this mean? If something is necessary, is it not justifiable? If it is justifiable, how can it be bad?

If we're saying all violence is categorically bad, I guess you'll want to abolish the military and the police, too, right?

Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.

The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.

Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.

>"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive

peaceful:

1. free from disturbance; tranquil.

2. not involving war or violence.

Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.

The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)

I'm sorry, but that's revisionist history.

Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader:

"That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it"

She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police.

This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com