To say that violence is never justified?

[hibbledobble]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52949014

There are shocking levels of violence against officers currently, this is not ok.

YABU. Violence is often justified.

Thank you janeskettle

Hermag are you really saying that it isn't the fault of rioters that they are throwing bicycles at police horses and mounted officers, or setting of flares at them to scare them and injure officers? I personally believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

My point was that women had posted peacefully for decades. I am not arguing a decisive factor within this specific context.

Here is an interesting article: www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy

Do you mean in the context of protests/activism or just generally?

Violence is absolutely justified some times. Have you family who fought in either wars? Are they violent thugs or heroes to you?

OP you are focussing on one incident involving a police horse which is indeed shocking. But that's a narrow view of a much bigger picture.

Without violent protests you would not have the vote and SA would still be operating an apartheid system.

Sometimes there is no other way.

Open your eyes.

And the violent protests stopped to make way for the way effort, where women worked hard in a variety of jobs as men were conscripted to the army. Arguably, it was this that finally gained suffrage for women, not the violent protests that had stopped years prior.

People are engaging in ahistorical discourse around the vote for women.

HINT: Just because you saw Suffragette at the movies doesnt mean 'violence won women the vote'.

You appear to give more of a damn about horses than black people being MURDERED. How dare you accuse people of violence who are protesting against state violence? How dare you frame it that violence is "never" acceptable? It is acceptable to hurt and kill Nazis, let's be crystal clear about that. It is necessary to stand up to a murderous police force and system. Today is DDay, remember that.

Most of the violence I’ve seen seems to have come from the police rather than the protestors, especially in the US.

I think you’re also naive to think social change is most efficient when the protests are peaceful. History proves that isn’t true.

Wow purple talk about putting words in my mouth. I have already said otherwise to what you are trying to imply.

How do you feel about the daily violence from police towards black people?

Women, she's a pacifist.

That means she is against use of violence in ALL situation, including the situation of a white man murdering a black man. Pacifists don't rank violence from least bad to most bad - you're projecting onto her things that don't arise from her philosophical commitment.

@janeskettle

People are engaging in ahistorical discourse around the vote for women.

HINT: Just because you saw Suffragette at the movies doesnt mean 'violence won women the vote'.

My original point was more generally about how long it took women to get the vote - whatever factors were ultimately successful.

All through the 18th and 19th century people - men, mainly - wrote petitions and tried to form trade unions and, yes, rioted and resorted to violence. Hence why I mentioned the Chartists. It is why as a women, an awareness of the importance of having the vote is so important, because of the extra time and barriers that were involved. Some women felt violence was necessary after decades of protest. I am not seeking to 'ahistorically' or otherwise debate causality within parameters that were not the original point of the post.

Anyway, back to the important point that some officers have been injured, so violence is never justified.

No, the point is that pacifists don't believe violence is ever justified. Not to black men, not to police, not to animals, not to the invading army, not to the prison guard engaged in torturing them, as I once so memorably heard a Buddhist nun describe her experience.

It's fair to make the anti-pacifist point. It's fair to argue that violence is sometimes acceptable. I gave examples upthread. What's unfair is to assume a self-declared pacifist is 'only against violence towards police'.

Do people not understand pacifism? Have they not heard pacifists being interviewed before? Read about their world view?

@NewNameGuy

There is no excess violence against black people in the uk and arguably not in the us

No "excess" violence, so just the level of violence that you would expect and condone?

This is a system where a black man loses his life for a fake bill where the police wouldn't bother turning up if he were white. The police wouldn't even be called.

There is no excess violence against black people in the uk and arguably not in the us

What did I just read?

Crosspost PolPotNoodle

Thank you Jane. I am against violence towards anyone, including Mr Floyd, and anyone else who has had an untimely death. I am vegan as well, as my commitment to pacifism is absolute. I worry that the violence will increase currently, and result in more unnecessary deaths.

I am against violence towards anyone, including Mr Floyd, and anyone else who has had an untimely death

But that isn't how you framed your OP at all. You only linked to news of the London protests and posted about violence against police.

I don't see how violence helps stop violence tbh

And it is possible to protest peacefully. Violent protest just serves to alienate a lite of people

I wonder if you have really been tested in your pacifism. Had to face down irrational aggression against you. Had to live in the knowledge that people think you are expendable based purely on how you look?

Nelson Mandela refused to renounce violence as a condition of his release.

@Greysparkles After every police murder there is a call to end racism and police brutality towards black people. This has been going on for years. We have finally had enough. What do you suggest will work?

@Greysparkles

I don't see how violence helps stop violence tbh

You know what happened on the 6th June 1944 - 76 years ago?