Obviously the ideal amount of political violence should be zero. If any other option exists, I think those must be taken first.
But sometimes the status quo is violence, and letting the status quo continue doing violence will overtime do more harm than one act of political violence. So mathematically, there must be some point where some violence is worth the cost of less harm in the future.
Well, that's part of my point. Everyone who stopped eating at Chick Fil A stopped 10+ years ago, everyone else doesn't care. Anyone willing to boycott is already boycotting, and they can't boycott any harder until we have a method of acquiring necessities from somewhere else.
Yeah, that's kind of the idea, like starting a trend of sabotaging multinational companies that have warehouses and logistics all across the country. Anyone near one could be inspired and do their part.
That's true, but at the same time, aren't most people already boycotting what they can? I think anyone who feels bad about supporting shitty companies are already avoiding them when they can, and if they can't, well there isn't much more to do until we hit mutual aid networks.
you dont need to kill police or politicians, probably throwing your life away, to make a difference
I agree, I just want people to think it's okay. If the two extremes are "kill all cops and politicians" and "kill all poor people and minorities," then a equitable middle ground where we don't kill anybody and tax billionaires out of existence and repress cops into being friendly servants is a good compromise.
I think lots of people saying "good, who cares" to the CEO assassination was good, and should be applied liberally.
I think you're both right, it's easy to be the internet tough guy, but until the protests are out your door you should be making a praxis network. At least I think that's what they mean about organized crime
Obviously the ideal amount of political violence should be zero. If any other option exists, I think those must be taken first.
But sometimes the status quo is violence, and letting the status quo continue doing violence will overtime do more harm than one act of political violence. So mathematically, there must be some point where some violence is worth the cost of less harm in the future.