[ SECRET POST #2525 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2525 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 063 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The first paragraph still doesn't feel acceptable to me, in that it doesn't feel like it creates the potential for violence to serve a purpose. Killing all white people is an impossibility, so if you're hurting white people just because you think all white people hurt black people, your violence won't bring about any form of social change. Suffering is not and can never be a meaningful end in itself, no matter who you're making suffer.

well I think the idea is precisely that it will create a possibility for change - it is, or at least it can be, a political action with political ends. Through (1) creating an awareness of the reality of violence and oppression which exists and the stakes surrounding the situation and (2) making the maintenance of the situation more costly and more painful and, ultimately, untenable for the powers that be. That's the idea behind it. I think, ultimately, that's the case however you define violence as a condition, and I think even if you disagree, there is a logic behind it. So it definitely can be something to bring about social change, and I think that it frequently has been, and I think there have been times where it has brought about social change.

This is not a true statement. Under reasonable circumstances, a position you disagree with is one that has premises you disagree with. If the conclusions follow logically from the premises, that's something you can discuss, argue with, and maybe even change someone's mind on. But if the conclusions don't follow logically from the premises, you can't even debate it, because discarding logic means there aren't any rules left to debate with.

I accept your point, with the caveat that it's often a tendentious question whether or not the conclusion does follow from the premises, so the circumstances where you can out-and-out say that the position is simply illogical are, I think, relatively small.