- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Violence has no place in politics." Civilized idea or naive?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:40 am
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:40 am
Whenever an act of political violence happens, there is always a lot of handwringing and people piously saying that such actions have no place in our society.
Two threads over the last few days made me think about this: the one on the origin of Rights and the Pope talking about war.
Although it should ideally be a last resort, violence or the threat of it, always had and always will have a very prominent place in politics.
As some in the Rights thread corrrectly stated, while God gives the rights, He does not make a habit of enforcing them. Here on Earth might makes right.
I would argue that the most effective political change in this country and the world involves violence, whether on the winning or losing side.
Tell me how I am wrong.
Two threads over the last few days made me think about this: the one on the origin of Rights and the Pope talking about war.
Although it should ideally be a last resort, violence or the threat of it, always had and always will have a very prominent place in politics.
As some in the Rights thread corrrectly stated, while God gives the rights, He does not make a habit of enforcing them. Here on Earth might makes right.
I would argue that the most effective political change in this country and the world involves violence, whether on the winning or losing side.
Tell me how I am wrong.
7
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:43 am to BrodyDad
quote:
"Violence has no place in politics." Civilized idea or naive?
I think one would have to define terms more specifically first. When someone says violence in politics, do they mean attacking or killing someone during a civil/peaceful debate on ideas? Are they referencing global politics where hot conflicts are involved? It's too broad of a statement to address without further clarification.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:43 am to BrodyDad
A certain amount, sure. Smart operators know its limits. It's a tool, for sure.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:55 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
I think one would have to define terms more specifically first. When someone says violence in politics, do they mean attacking or killing someone during a civil/peaceful debate on ideas? Are they referencing global politics where hot conflicts are involved? It's too broad of a statement to address without further clarification.
I would argue both. I'm not trying to morally justify the former, but it would be shortsighted to not see that the killing of Lincoln or Kennedy did not have political benefits for those who opposed them.
On the other side, the Civil Rights movement leaders knew that their best option was to showcase the violence of those who opposed them. Had the racists and segregationists not physically attacked peaceful protesters with some regularity, the progress of that movement would have been a lot slower.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:58 am to BrodyDad
quote:
I would argue both. I'm not trying to morally justify the former, but it would be shortsighted to not see that the killing of Lincoln or Kennedy did not have political benefits for those who opposed them.
On the other side, the Civil Rights movement leaders knew that their best option was to showcase the violence of those who opposed them. Had the racists and segregationists not physically attacked peaceful protesters with some regularity, the progress of that movement would have been a lot slower.
I see what you're saying. I think it's two different conversations; is political violence morally justifiable or is it pragmatically effective have two very different roads we can walk down.
Certainly there are agurments that from a strictly pragmatic perspective, political violence has had examples of some real effectiveness. Were those examples of violence morally justifiable? That's a whole different ball of wax.
This post was edited on 3/31/26 at 10:01 am
Posted on 3/31/26 at 9:59 am to BrodyDad
Some violence is good. Some violence is bad.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:00 am to BrodyDad
Some of the Founding Fathers settled their disputes with pistols. Andrew Jackson was noted for that style of debate.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:06 am to Zach
100% this!!! Our Founding Fathers picked a fight with their overlords and created the freest country the world has ever known.
And, they left us with the 2nd amendment so we could revolt against the government if it ever became tyrannical
And, they left us with the 2nd amendment so we could revolt against the government if it ever became tyrannical
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:09 am to BrodyDad
If the ruling class of whatever form of government truly has no fear of violence, what’s to keep them from ruling absolutely?
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:13 am to BrodyDad
It has been said that, "war is politics by another means".
It seems that the closer a disagreement gets to becoming an existential threat, the odds for violence increases.
It seems that the closer a disagreement gets to becoming an existential threat, the odds for violence increases.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:17 am to BrodyDad
Things would be better if we still tarred and feathered corrupt politicians.
Posted on 3/31/26 at 10:28 am to Django Unchained
quote:
And, they left us with the 2nd amendment so we could revolt against the government if it ever became tyrannical
I bet the citizens of Iran wish they had a 2nd amendment.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News