bitcrafter

I think that you may have missed the reference.

One should be wary about voting for the Alligators Eating Peoples' Faces party...

Yes, because of all the daemons.

Nope, that was entirely an invention on your part. Recall that my actual words were:

It is much better to acknowledge that blowing up the building is a non-peaceful act and then examine it critically in order to determine whether it is really worth it, then to dismiss it as being peaceful which makes it seem like it is not a big deal.

If, after examining it critically, you decide to go ahead, then so be it; you just shouldn't skip that step because blowing things up is kind of a big deal, even when merited.

(Believe it or not, I actually try my best to choose my words carefully in order to convey my position as clearly as possible; I cannot help the fact that people do not seem to put as much care into reading them in return.)

By I am extremely curious about how you would respond to the question in my comment, though:

But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?

I would also add that if the answer to the first question is "none", then: why not?

Demolition of facist tools of invasion of privacy is literally what this community is about. “Abolition” if you require a synonym.

I do not think that it is within the power of these particular protestors to "abolish" anything, so saying they should do that next seems a bit silly.

Thank you for not removing your beam from the ICE course of violence.

Where did I ever say that their course of violence was not bad? That is a projection on your part. You are arguing with an invented fantasy version of me rather than the person that actually exists.

But hey, let me help you out a bit. If you think that violence is necessary, then I would actually strongly recommend reading the Bhagavad Gita because it has you covered, as it is basically all about a god (Lord Krishna) trying to convince a man (Arjuna) not to abandon a battle on both the physical and spiritual plain. Lots of verses are relevant, but to limit myself to a few (2:31-33):

Considering your dharma, you should not vacillate. For a warrior, nothing is higher than a war against evil. The warrior confronted with such a war should be pleased, Arjuna, for it comes as an open gate to heaven. But if you do not participate in this battle against evil, you will incur sin, violating your dharma and your honor.

Ok. Thank you for admitting you don’t comprehend the point of protests.

You just linked to a play in order to make your point. That is pretty consistent with you living in a world of fantasy, I must say.

Until you learn how dictators have been stripped from their violence historically, I have no further use to engage your bad faith view of demolition.

If you think that demolishing a building is the best course of action at this time then so be it, but don't act like I am the one with a bad faith view because you insist on calling it a peaceful act, and I am merely pointing it out.

So you are arguing that the optimal strategy is to do one protest to make your point about the state, and then start unleashing violence?

So the ultimate point was to criticize these people for merely engaging in another protest rather than doing something effective?

What "non-violent solution bullshit"? I never said that violence was never an acceptable solution (in fact, nor did I even use the word "violence"), just that it should be called what it is.

But if I am part of the problem, let me ask you this: what acts of violence have you personally carried out recently to fight fascism? Or are you part of the problem too?

If they had believed it was the best option at the very beginning, then nothing had been stopping her family from fleeing somewhere else instead of going into hiding when it would have arguably been easiest to do so.

Also, it would not be enough to wound some of the soldiers; you would have to kill all of them before they were able to kill you and then capture your friends. Nonetheless, once her family had been discovered, I acknowledge that was really the only option that had a chance of keeping them from being captured. It is one thing to say that, though, and another to actually start shooting when you are the one faced with such a decision.

If the people keeping her family in hiding had chosen to open fire on the Gestapo instead of keeping her family's presence a secret, then it is not clear to me how it would have resulted in her living longer than she did.