tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post4964516726002977307..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Playing with Political FireJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-73651881741214088802016-06-21T04:09:48.974-04:002016-06-21T04:09:48.974-04:00" is it perhaps inevitable that some conserva..." is it perhaps inevitable that some conservatives would respond that way to too much change coming too fast?"<br /><br />Maybe. I was always thinking about myself as conservative (in Poland). I alwasy expected laws to be fair and upholding social order and peace. When I see that laws treat me as a sucker and promote destruction of social order, I no longer feel obligated to have any obligation towards state and laws.szopenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02234132446740838968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-91124080679954582042016-06-19T12:08:52.811-04:002016-06-19T12:08:52.811-04:00Whoops -- Homogeneous.
Whoops -- Homogeneous.<br /><br />Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-29124304295407894612016-06-19T11:59:16.852-04:002016-06-19T11:59:16.852-04:00"But I absolutely feel that always, always, e..."But I absolutely feel that always, always, extreme anger must be accompanied by a conscious, spoken rejection of violence..."<br /><br />How compatible is extreme anger with conscious, measured thought? Can you do both at the same time?<br /><br /> A diverse society with 330 million+ inhabitants probably comes with a higher level of anger than one with a heterogeneous and smaller population. I believe diversity is a net positive, but all we talk about is the advantages, and almost never the disadvantages. Adapting, co-existing, tolerating, and the like are effected by both. This is why I care little about comparisons (like violence) to countries like Finland or Japan or Sweden or Norway. What's to compare?Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-50695008129339085482016-06-19T11:32:58.399-04:002016-06-19T11:32:58.399-04:00There is no good answer to this question because p...There is no good answer to this question because people come in different forms with different triggers. How many freedoms should the majority have to surrender to the endless few who abuse one freedom or another? I guess it all comes down to an idea versus how much you are willing to tolerate to protect the idea.Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-50478605331851461832016-06-19T11:07:30.145-04:002016-06-19T11:07:30.145-04:00I'm not sure there's an upper limit, so lo...I'm not sure there's an upper limit, so long as you always insist on tempering your anger with an open, stated rejection of violence. And if there is an upper limit, I would imagine it must be highly variable and differ greatly from situation to situation.<br /><br />Probably the realistic limit to anger is the point at which you start becoming incoherent. It's one thing to combine seething anger with sound logic to give a fiery, damning condemnation of something, and to demand action or change - it's quite another to simply go on a disjointed, abusive rant and simply spew vitriol.<br /><br />But I absolutely feel that always, always, extreme anger must be accompanied by a conscious, spoken rejection of violence - a grim reminder to oneself and to one's audience that despite their potential power, the fires of rage are a dangerous impetus, and if not properly and carefully harnessed they will grow beyond all control and reduce all that is good in your cause to ash.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-80420501421962528912016-06-19T08:37:28.134-04:002016-06-19T08:37:28.134-04:00I suppose the question is, how angry can you get (...I suppose the question is, how angry can you get (in public) without promoting violence among those so inclined?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-22628386967013502122016-06-19T03:43:50.301-04:002016-06-19T03:43:50.301-04:00"I think our leaders have a duty to work for ...<i>"I think our leaders have a duty to work for comity rather than ratchet up the rancor, so I will never myself support angry crusaders. I am not, though, ready to say that political anger is always wrong, or to try to silence the voices of rage."</i> <br /><br />Political anger is often justified, but political violence very rarely is.<br /><br />Aside from the obvious moral problems, violence in the name of a political cause is often simply counter productive. Look to instances such as the fighting between the IRA and the British Army, killing many, breeding further hatred and animosity, but achieving nothing of value, ultimately being rendered moot by the simple passage of time and by societal changes which had nothing to do with the violence.<br /><br />If you want to preach revolution, I can respect that. Sometimes a revolution is needed. There are fantastic examples such as the abolition of slavery, the universal suffrage movement, the independence of India and other colonial powers, and of course the push for civil rights, where entire social orders were overturned in drastic reversals, and it was for the good of the whole world.<br /><br />But if your call for revolution is paired with a call for revolt or rebellion - if you seek to overturn the established order not by the strength of your reason, or the justness of your cause, or the humbling selflessness of your bravery, but through taking up arms and maiming and murdering those who don't share your views - I will (with only very rare exception) denounce and resist you and your cause with every fibre of my being.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com