Rendered at 21:53:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Planktonne 1 days ago [-]
Violence is a morally acceptable response to being oppressed and controlled; women were not given a fair stake in society, and therefore it would be unreasonable to expect them to be bound by its laws.
warumdarum 17 hours ago [-]
Is it though? If a ward of the state who is trying to drive a stolen car because they force him to bath at the flatshare he lifes at riots against the police arresting him, is that absolute answer a good fit to a gradient question? Or a expression of the problem?
Planktonne 14 hours ago [-]
Do you genuinely believe that to be an equivalent situation to the historical oppression of women?
nsvd2 7 hours ago [-]
Analogies can provide insight without exact equivalence.
jpfromlondon 1 days ago [-]
The suffragists arguably achieved a great deal more, without them the measures of the suffragettes would likely have set women’s rights back further.
Yet they are all but forgotten.
Planktonne 1 days ago [-]
I don't agree that the suffragists are forgotten. Beyond that though, I'd say that lots of successful liberation movements have had multiple wings with different methods.
joemazerino 19 hours ago [-]
Violence against children being morally acceptable is an interesting take.
Planktonne 19 hours ago [-]
> or detonated a bomb at Holloway Prison that covered sleeping children in shards of glass
They attempted to bomb a prison notorious for holding and torturing women. Some windows were broken in nearby houses [1], and I don't think there are any reports of actual injuries to the children.
Significantly worse collateral damage is accepted daily for far weaker reasons; broken glass from windows is something that wouldn't even be mentioned in any other context. Recently, the US dropped a bomb on a school directly--if the suffragettes should be castigated for the windows, what do you think of that country?
What about modern non-wealthy? They neither get a fair stake in society nor even a voice that matters. Voting pretty much doesn't work. How much the issue is supported by non-wealthy voters has no bearing on the laws that are going to be written that affect it.
And by non-wealthy I pretty much mean anyone that has to work to live, regardless of whether they can find the job or not.
jzemeocala 23 hours ago [-]
After having spent 20+ years growing up in rural FL, I've been telling people for years now that: "poor people are the new negro".
If you are poor, than you look poor usually. And people ABSOLUTELY treat you differently from the government to the local store.
I lived in one really messed up part of FL called interlachen that really opened my eyes to that fact.
Planktonne 1 days ago [-]
Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.
However, if we get to the point when control over their own lives is denied to people, it won't be unreasonable for them to resist. We've had slave revolutions before, and they weren't morally wrong.
bluefirebrand 22 hours ago [-]
> Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all
I disagree pretty strongly.
If the system is rigged in such a way that you mostly get the same outcomes no matter how people vote, that is only a razor thin line away from not being allowed to vote at all
Planktonne 19 hours ago [-]
I think it's an easy edge to tip over, but I'd stress that there is a difference between 'voting but having an unpopular stance' and 'denied basic rights'. There isn't a major political party that represents my views currently, for example, but it would be premature for me to start shooting because this is not (yet and hopefully ever) the same as my voice being explicitly ignored.
bluefirebrand 18 hours ago [-]
> voting but having an unpopular stance
This is not what I imagine when I see someone saying "voting is not effective"
Unpopular stances losing in votes is voting working as intended
Unpopular stances winning is when voting is very broken
scotty79 1 days ago [-]
> Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.
How so exactly? Do you think that the fact that people in russia, for example, can vote is far from them not being allowed to vote?
Planktonne 24 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't have a moral problem with people in Russia engaging in violent resistance.
scotty79 24 hours ago [-]
How about US? It's just one step removed. Or maybe half a step?
Planktonne 23 hours ago [-]
1. It feels like you're trying to walk me into some imagined rhetorical trap; if that's the case, feel free to speed up.
2. It's completely possible that justified violence could happen in the US; it would, as anywhere, depend on what violence by who for what reason, but there's nothing that makes the US special in this regard. In the past, on multiple occasions (resistance to slavery, for example), political violence in the cause of freedom has occurred, and I don't think that was immoral.
scotty79 22 hours ago [-]
Sorry. I was just curious about your response. Thanks.
Planktonne 19 hours ago [-]
Forgive me; I was overly touchy.
sohex 1 days ago [-]
Shout out to the best named feminist group of all time, W.I.T.C.H. The Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell.
Yet they are all but forgotten.
They attempted to bomb a prison notorious for holding and torturing women. Some windows were broken in nearby houses [1], and I don't think there are any reports of actual injuries to the children.
Significantly worse collateral damage is accepted daily for far weaker reasons; broken glass from windows is something that wouldn't even be mentioned in any other context. Recently, the US dropped a bomb on a school directly--if the suffragettes should be castigated for the windows, what do you think of that country?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_...
And by non-wealthy I pretty much mean anyone that has to work to live, regardless of whether they can find the job or not.
If you are poor, than you look poor usually. And people ABSOLUTELY treat you differently from the government to the local store.
I lived in one really messed up part of FL called interlachen that really opened my eyes to that fact.
However, if we get to the point when control over their own lives is denied to people, it won't be unreasonable for them to resist. We've had slave revolutions before, and they weren't morally wrong.
I disagree pretty strongly.
If the system is rigged in such a way that you mostly get the same outcomes no matter how people vote, that is only a razor thin line away from not being allowed to vote at all
This is not what I imagine when I see someone saying "voting is not effective"
Unpopular stances losing in votes is voting working as intended
Unpopular stances winning is when voting is very broken
How so exactly? Do you think that the fact that people in russia, for example, can vote is far from them not being allowed to vote?
2. It's completely possible that justified violence could happen in the US; it would, as anywhere, depend on what violence by who for what reason, but there's nothing that makes the US special in this regard. In the past, on multiple occasions (resistance to slavery, for example), political violence in the cause of freedom has occurred, and I don't think that was immoral.