I agree with much of this.Flex wrote: ↑26 Aug 2020, 2:28pmI have a bunch of mixed feelings on the efficacy of violence (and how we even define "violence"), as well as gun control (and I'm sure a search on these forums would reveal shifting, ping-ponging views from me over the years). I generally don't feel qualified to say with authority what's right or wrong from moral, strategic or tactical perspectives and my position as a white, male middle class person largely disqualifies whatever I'd have to say anyways other than: I support the views, even when they're contradictory, of movements of liberation and my goal is not to undermine shit.
Except, I will say it's deeply fucked up that we categorize the destruction of property as "violence" as if it was a person being attacked. Burning down a thousand Targets and smashing a thousand Starbucks windows doesn't begin to compare to the cops (or some psycho militia nut) murdering a single person. That I'm pretty confident about.
I respect what people say about nonviolence but history has shown the non violent alternative is only acceptable to those in power when also faced with an armed movement. Until then they dismiss and seek to undermine those seeking nonviolent change.