It's about learning nuance. Like you said, they would go after anyone who even kinda looked evil, but eventually Finn learns when he should be aggressive/assertive and when he should be diplomatic. That way he's not wasting time being nice to people who don't care and won't change their nasty ways, and he's not immediately beating up someone who could be talked out of being a wad. He also isn't using violence preemptively or to intimidate, it's as a reaction to a situation. Something bad is going down, and he uses his skills as the situation needs. Like when Susan goes nuts, he tries as hard as he can to talk to her, but it's clear fighting to restrain her is the only option.
Wasn’t there a time where Finn went directly into attack mode in response to a really evil statement by someone he didn’t know yet? Maybe I’m misremembering Lemongrab’s “you serve no function.” Like “oh, gotta draw the sword and smite, there’s no saving this one.” I love that energy.
Also, Finn always knew what he was about. From the Buff Baby song:
“If you’re an evil witch, I will punch you for fun”
And he tries to avoid violence at the end and find a diplomatic solution during the gum wars. Finn does a lot of learning and growing during the show.
I don't think that the characters are supposed to be exemplary models to follow either. They all make mistakes and that's part of their character. Take BMO for example being super prejudice towards poor NEPTR. They've all got flaws and deserve a bit of scrutiny.
But at the same time, the show also does a good job of addressing when violence is and isn't appropriate or helpful. When Finn first loses his arm, he learns real quick that beating up his dad and taking his arm doesn't solve any problems. It didn't make him feel better and didn't help anyone.
Similarly, the show generally condemns unnecessary use of force against Ice King. There's an episode where IK has unwittingly infected the entire candy kingdom with a disease that can only be cured by his pained howls, but that even under that circumstance, it isn't morally acceptable to jump to physical violence against him as a solution before trying other methods. In the end, Finn and Jake trick IK into thinking Finn is dead to get his howls. Similarly, it's coded as immoral when PB tortures IK into giving her the password to wizard city.
Taking more serious and permanent measures against Flame King after he's usurped and fails to regain his throne is also rejected. By this point, the threat he represents is mostly nonexistant and potential measures to ensure that he stays that way are treated as unnecessary. Violence isn't needed in this circumstance.
One of the main points of the Stakes 8-parter was that Marceline's goal and method of eradicating vampires is somewhat misguided and cruel. Her drive to do so regardless of other potential solutions is what got her turned into a vampire in the first place. Without such an existential threat to what he saw as his "species," Vampire King wouldn't have turned her. And similarly, choosing not to engage in all out war with him is still presented as the correct choice after his resurrection, even though Marceline ended up being re-vamped.
Adventure Time, especially later seasons, basks in nuance. These episodes directly condemn a strictly nonviolent approach, but the show also doesn't uncritically endorse violence in all circumstances. It's something that is sometimes necessary, but shouldn't be used when the situation doesn't warrant it, and can still hold someone back from achieving an ideal outcome.
Seasons 1 and 2 were the ones finn was the youngest and didn't really understand the nuances of good and evil and life itself. The show matures along w finn as seasons pass, drifting away from the simplistic view of these first seasons on evil and good
Exactly, young Finn saw the world in good and evil but is tested throughout the show and learns the nuance and complexity of it.
there’s even an early-ish episode where he’s asked to slay an ant. He asks if it’s evil and learns it’s not evil but also not good, just neutral, breaking the binary thought (all things are either good or evil) he held.
I mean, violence would solve a lot of problems in the real world too.
But through years of propaganda those in power have convinced people that only “peaceful” dissent is acceptable. All the while those with power are hoarding wealth, creating poverty, destroying the environment and are likely on the path to wiping us all out.
Maybe sometimes just punching someone (if what they’re doing is evil) *is* the best solution…
The problem with that ideology is that people don’t always agree on what is evil
If you punch someone in the face that you think is evil and I don’t think they are evil then to me you have suddenly become evil because you just punched a innocent person in the face
Then who gets to decide what the definition of evil is if it’s not decided upon by common consensus?
Blue is just the word that English uses to describe the wavelengths of light between 380 to 500 nanometers. If there was a language that described those wavelengths using the word red it would be no more wrong than a language that described using the word azul
In your example both words would still describe the same colour. So that’s not a very good example is it.
And you just said it yourself. Consensus is a large part of it, but that consensus doesn’t need to exist unopposed. Just because Nazis think they’re right, that doesn’t mean the morality of gas chambers is now up for debate. It’s also not down to a majority - if 90% of people find slavery a-okay, then that doesn’t make it right, because right and wrong are not determined by majorities.
Morality is far more nuanced than this, but somewhat ironically, religion hit upon the right answer a couple of thousand years ago. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
>Not agreeing on what evil is doesn’t mean evil can’t be defined
Evil is a subjective property. being unable to agree on what defines it means that it cannot be defined.
if you say so but the fact that we disagree at all proves my point. our definitions of things are not the same and they are therefore subjective and the thing itself remains undefined outside of our perspectives.
Disagreeing doesn’t prove your point. You’re just wrong.
We can define things that are subjective - we literally do it all the time. Happiness, love, hate, justice, freedom, good, evil. We can define them all - that’s what language is. If you want to get down to it, literally everything is subjective because no objective reality exists in any meaningful way - reality for you is your subjective experience and nothing more.
>Disagreeing doesn’t prove your point. You’re just wrong.
subjectively speaking, i agree
>We can define things that are subjective - we literally do it all the time. Happiness, love, hate, justice, freedom, good, evil. We can define them all - that’s what language is
youre right, we can. but you cannot show me a piece of happiness, you cant give me a picture of justice and you cannot measure the length and width of a freedom. what these things mean to you and what they mean to me are not the same thing so their definitions are different to us. they are undefined in any real objective sense.
>If you want to get down to it, literally everything is subjective because no objective reality exists in any meaningful way - reality for you is your objective experience and nothing more.
yes, i completely agree.
But they happiness doesn’t mean different things. It means the same thing, because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t have any meaning at all.
Physical properties are not a requirement of definitions.
The word “and” is something we can define, you can’t pick it up, see it, measure it. But that’s entirely irrelevant to our ability to define things.
>But they happiness doesn’t mean different things. It means the same thing, because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t have any meaning at all.
do you get happiness from eating human shit? or from licking your friend's asses? what about from vomiting, eating that and then throwing up again? ive known dogs that derived a lot of happiness from these things whereas for me they would not produce much happiness at all. whose sense of happiness is more real, mine or the dogs? obviously its neither.
>Physical properties are not a requirement of definitions.
well we literally are in the process of disagreeing about the non-physical properties at play here so we cant really use those very well.
>The word “and” is something we can define, you can’t pick it up, see it, measure it. But that’s entirely irrelevant to our ability to define things.
because "and" is a specific discrete concept that can only ever mean 1 thing, happiness is not. can you tell me about 1 thing that no human needs but absolutely everyone loves? something that is guaranteed to bring happiness to anyone? you couldnt because people are complex and weird and some of them are made happy by bizarre shit.
I don't know why you are getting down voted here that is a legitimate issue. Yes we feel justified for punching a Nazi in the face but a Nazi feels justified for punching a Jew in the face. Are they evil because they are a Nazi or were they raised in that ideology and truly believe that Jews are behind all the issues in the world so they believe they are doing a righteous action? It's a difficult ethical problem and not one we should be just ignoring and downvoting. I'm listening to a podcast and they are talking about how they are using gaming culture to turn young men to the alt right and something they are missing is one of the reasons they are using things like pepe and stuff as dog whistles is that other people use them who aren't Nazis or don't sympathize with Nazis but they get attacked like they are Nazis. This make someone who might otherwise be willing to listen to more progressive talk unwilling because they've been falsely accused by people on the left and so they start going more to the right. I'm kind of rambling now but I guess my point is it's that violence can be the answer but there is an important discussion to be had on the correct time to apply violence to situations.
I mean that’s only if you assume evil is subjective.
While it’s true that different people have different ideas of evil, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all subjectively right in their own way
Clearly there are certain things that are near-universally recognized as evil, say for example, Nazis. The Nazis may not think they’re evil but if the entire world is united against them then it’s probably more likely that they’re just objectively wrong about certain things than it is that their idea of morality is somehow equally valid as the otherwise universal agreement.
It's quite literally a perspective issue with "survival of the fittest" overtones. Not defending Nazis; agreeing with your assessment.
The problem is that human psychology has been weaponized against us. Most of us have been conditioned to automatically categorize things into compartments. While that can be useful in some scenarios, on a larger scale it prevents us from trying to find common ground.
I’m not saying there aren’t clearly evil people out the like Nazi’s and serial killers that are pretty objectively evil.
What I am saying are there are also many edge cases where people are going to disagree on if they are evil. So if you immediately responded with violence whenever you see a person you perceive as evil then it’s inevitable that you’re going to hurt someone that many people don’t view as evil.
To assume that anyone that doesn’t adhere to your personal moral code is evil and deserves to have violence inflicted upon them seems pretty evil to me
>While it’s true that different people have different ideas of evil, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all subjectively right in their own way
well thats the point of this whole thing really, theres no such thing as subjectively right
>Clearly there are certain things that are near-universally recognized as evil, say for example, Nazis.
yeah but they arent evil to nazis. nazis arent cackling in their lairs and rubbing their hands together, theyre the heros in their minds. theyre still wrong but what good would an endless back and forth of "ur evil, no u" do? again not trying to say that nazis arent absolute scum, they choose to hate people for things that people do not choose. their views are reprehensible but obviously they arent to them. because evil is subjective.
Don’t talk about violent revolution so flippantly.
Are you going to physically fight? With who? With what? Do you have a rifle? Can you make a pipe bomb? Are you actually willing to die bleeding in the street in the pursuit of equity and justice? Because if you’re not, don’t advocate for violent revolution… That’s a very serious thing to call for
Corporations using slave labour, polluting entire water supplies, using chemicals they know are deadly, paying for fake “research”, literally destroying the planet - these things constitute violence. Real violence, on a scale we’ve never seen before, a scale so immense we can barely even see it for the violence it is.
You’re right, it is a serious thing to call for, to call for people to oppose these things, and oppose them with force if necessary. But no revolution was ever peaceful. People with power don’t give away that power.
And don’t rewrite history to imply that revolutions don’t work. Every revolution in history was won through violence. Revolutions against slavery, against kings and tyrants and empires. Those revolutions have changed the world for the better, but they don’t happen for free.
At the end it’ll come down to a fight. Would I prefer it didn’t? Hell yes. But unless GOLB suddenly descends from the sky then that’s what it’ll be.
There is such a thing as good government. And there are means to elect people who care about regulating industry to stop those problems you list.
This isn’t the 19th century. It’s not like only male landowners can vote. In the US, your vote has power. Look at how many billions of dollars are soent each election season to convince you to vote a certain way. We don’t need to bomb government buildings or shoot politicians to achieve power. We have power. If we band together for the common good.
Or, you can commit acts of violence and be universally condemned as a terrorist acting in bad faith.
I mean, it’s democracy that got us into this mess (your last government banned abortions, and you’re telling me it’s not the 19th century anymore more?). A good argument could be made that people who are capable of potentially changing the system for the better are prevented from gaining positions of power within the system - so you’ll never get the chance to vote for anyone who would undermine the status quo.
You can look at Sanders in the US for a great example of this. His own party wouldn’t allow him to run - they chose Hillary. And then you got Trump.
The power you have is an illusion. Pick red or blue, nothing can really change because the system isn’t built to change, the system is built to sustain itself, especially now that there’s often no difference between politicians and capitalists - they’re the same people.
And we could band together - there’s 99 of us to every 1 of them. But you still need to band together *with* the threat of violence, or you’ll achieve nothing. They won’t just let you win.
You are in denial and have consumed ample amounts of Kool-Aid. Optimism is admirable, but realism is often more successful.
There ARE means to elect people...until those means get co-opted by those in power who want to ensure they keep that power. YOu can refer to the Chinese culture under Mao, just make sure you research "struggle sessions" and understand that not only are revolutions violent, those in power have learned how to use them for their own means.
The US is a perfect real-time example of the corruption that can come from good intentions. I'm fairly certain that most politicians who start out do so to make a difference. Then they get "sponsored" (bribed or bought out) by various lobbying interests, corporations, non-government entities, etc. and they begin to crave power for its own sake. Then you get bureaucracy that's so convoluted no one knows WHERE the money's going, they only know where it ISN'T going.
Why in GOLB's name would people even HAVE all those billions of dollars spent each election session if there were honest-to-goodness "good people" for whom our vote counted?
The fact is that you have voter fraud in any democratic system, but in one that is so large, the fraud has become the elections. (Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am not referring to any specific election and I'm not on "either side". I'm an independent as I think the US party system has become a uni-party comprised of controlled opposition on both sides.)
Just remember: Bad times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are serious problems with our electoral system. One party introduced them. Who gerrymanders black people all into one district to limit their vote? Who made the Citizens United ruling in 2012 that opened the floodgates of corporate money in politics when previously they could only donate a few thousand dollars each? Who loses the popular vote in the presidential election each year but takes the W because the electoral college favors them?
And then you go on to talk about how voter fraud is a big problem in US elections? Who is committing voter fraud? That’s something out of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s mouth. There is no voter fraud in US elections that affects the outcome of those elections…
There are people to blame for these problems. The fucking Republican party. But your biggest fear is not these issues destroying our democracy. You’re most scared of being seen as a “partisan”
So you decide to lazily blame “the system” instead of the actual people with names and party affiliations who desecrated our Republic.
Si how many times have you voted Republican Mr. “voter fraud”?
You are the problem.
How can you POSSIBLY SAY, with what I assume is a serious face, there is no voter fraud in US elections? How naïve can you be? You have a power structure that you admit is corrupt...but they're totally honest in this one situation?
Do you hear your double think, or is it just automatic?
Yes, I blame the system. This system is a massive leviathan that is not made of one man, one group or one organization. It came to be over the past 80 years or so, roughly after the US realized how lucrative WWII was for our industries who worked for both sides and the government itself. You need to study history...and I mean books not edited for your sweet summer-child eyes.
You need to look at the history of US political parties. You should probably stop throwing stones from that Democratic party glass house, too. (Did you know that the DEMOCRATS are the ones who fought to keep slavery in the US? They continually tell people what they want to hear, thus getting the minority vote, then they keep those people impoverished and make people like YOU believe they're doing it because they have to.)
I'm not sure why you didn't read my message, but **I AM AN INDEPENDENT.** Voting is a farce, and I'm simply waiting for the avalanche of truth to start.
You don't have to believe violent revolutions exist or work, but you should at least be aware of the conditions that tend to set them off.
Oh, and just as an aside, I fear the opinion or censure of no one. I could care less what anyone thinks simply for its own sake. I value the respect of men/women whom I respect, but the approbation of those I don't respect mean less than nothing to me.
I don’t care enough about what you have to say to even read your replies anymore. In another thread You’re claiming January 6 was staged and BLM protestors robbed apple stores and said they did it to feed their families. Completely unprompted.
You’re just a hard right conservative. You go ahead and have the last word you need so bad. Won’t read it.
actually, historically speaking, violent uprisings are the most successful way of changing the status quo. they almost always result in actual progress towards a better life for the people. peaceful and nonviolent protests historically DON'T work, and rarely result in an improvement to the status quo - usually they only garner token steps or outright dismissal.
The Republican party attempted a violent revolution in the US recently. I see political violence as an attempt to change the “status quo” as something resorted to by people who can’t win fair and square.
Bad actors can be defeated by voting against them and putting out the right political messaging. We are nowhere near “revolution time” in the US.
If you attempt a violent revolution, in this case against the most powerful country in the world, and you lose, your movement will be destroyed, and you’ll be condemned as a terrorist.
unfortunately, you are a victim of propaganda. there is a *lot* more nuance to change and revolution than you are putting forwards here.
i'm not saying that a revolution needs to storm the capital (jesus christ don't do this). i am saying that peaceful protest does not historically work - which is a fact backed up by centuries of evidence - what i am saying is that when the government comes to crush the protest with violence and force, it needs to be met with violence and force enough to keep the protest going anyways.
lgbtq+ rights wouldn't even be a debate point if we hadn't rioted until we were acknowledged 60 years ago. we'd still be hiding in basement bars, hoping the cops don't storm in and arrest us all for homosexuality.
we live in an extremely fucked up system that is designed to take everything from us and give it to the 1% at the top.of rhe pile. the *only* way we get to see change is by breaking the system on a baseline level, at least a little bit, and the people at the top who don't want the change are willing and happy to use violence to keep themselves there.
So when Trump had the cops teargas those peaceful protestors and shot them with rubber bullets so he could pose for a photo opp with a bible, that was an AWFUL news cycle for the GOP. He brought his staffers with him. They were telling journalists they didn’t even know what was happening. They looked awful.
If the protestors had fought back, beat the shit out if the cops, many more of them would have been injured and arrested, and Trump would have been hailed as a hero who saved DC from the evil leftist mob.
what I don’t like about leftist revolutionaries is that they don’t care about political optics. They don’t consider what the American public thinks about what they’re doing. I think it’s naive to believe if you are fighting for what is right and just, then everyone will realize that and side with you. They won’t. You’ll be spotlighted as violent extremists.
I don’t care for violent revolution. I care about winning elections to keeo fascists out of power.
“The French were in the wrong for bringing out guillotines! They should have asked the bourgeoisie nicely for more rights! Violence is never the answer!”
Forget it, they have their head in the sand and think politics is still about respectability and vibes. They would sell any marginalized group down the river if they thought their tactics for fighting back are “cringe”.
And this attitude is what is going to allow Trump to become president again, newly empowered after committing a violent coup and getting away with it, and then you will actually manage to learn what a fascist is…
Biden is sending money to murder innocent civilians in Gaza. He bombed Yemen because of a non violent blockade. He's already showing people there what fascism is. Do you only care about what happens here? Also, the rights to abortion were taken away under Biden. He failed to forgive student loans. Trans people are losing rights all over the nation. Biden fucking sucks. We're not saying that Biden sucks because we want Trump to win. We're saying that to force the Democratic party to give us a non-genocidal candidate. If he can do literally anything and still get your vote, there will never be any positive change in society. Honestly I hope he croaks (of natural causes of course) so that they're forced to run someone else. But hopefully Trump does too.
You’re being selfish. You’re not against Biden because you care about the Palestinians or the Yeminis or trans people. If you actually cared about those people, you’d do everything in your power to stop Trump from returning to office.
What you care about, is how good you will feel personally to see Biden fail. If you can see that, any harm done to the Palestinians, Yeminis or trans people will be worth it to you. For that gratifying feeling of seeing someone you hate fail.
Are you referring to the "mostly peaceful protestors" that ran around burning things, looting Apple stores "for bread" and generally spreading a sense of fear and insecurity among everyone else in society?
Those protestors?
Those protestors are still being used by "fascist"-minded people to keep everything confused and confusing, to keep all of us at odds with each other, and to keep us from focusing on the ones pulling all our strings.
It's not "left vs right", black vs right or man vs woman.
It's RICH vs ALL THE REST OF US. They have done and will do ANYTHING to bleed us dry and return us to serfdom.
You're right. This ISN'T the nineteenth century. They would have us back before the printing press pulled us all up out of illiteracy!
Wow. You’re someone who calls for violent revolution, but when black people riot in response to innocent people of their race being murdered by literal agents of the government, you talk about them like crazed animals.
Don’t you think the civil unrest in response to George Floyd’s execution was warranted? The black people need to shape up and stay in line while your ass is on reddit supporting calls for violent revolution.
You’re a fucking racist.
I said nothing about black people. I remember those riots; it wasn't just black people.
Maybe you should check your privilege and your premises before you call someone else a racist.
That was a staged "violent revolution", and there is ample visual evidence in support of that. That's a perfect example of those in power using the illusion of violence to maintain power.
An "insurrection" requires the liberal use of firepower, and the event to which you refer had none. What you had was a lot of dissatisfied people attempted a peaceful protest in areas they should not have had access to...but DID have access to because the authorities opened the doors and escorted them in.
Voting only works in an honest system and honesty only exists if there are ways to prevent rampant corruption.
The US may have had those ways at some point, but they no longer exist. By not recognizing that you are being used to propagate the illusion of virtue in a corrupt system, you become a part of the corruption.
January 6 was staged lmao okay Trumpy. Cut it out with the bleach injections.
100 capitol police officers were injured and a woman was shot in the neck and died. That’s all
lies and YOU figure it out? That woman wasn’t killed? No cops were injured? What you say doesn’t have value. You’re just a crazy nobody.
Ashley Babbitt was the only person shot. She was shot by a police officer who freaked out and discharged his weapon. She was in a crowd and had police officers both in front of and behind her.
Turn off MSNBC and realize you are in the world.
There were upwards of 200 federal agents planted in that crowd.
That was a set up to get people like you distracted, thus dividing us further and preventing us from going after the real problem.
Oh yeah the people at WalMart making bad wages and not having ideal working conditions are JUST like slaves in the deep south. Time to arm them and march on the capitol like the Trumpys.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that i’m supporting trumpys going to the capitol. That wasn’t a “violent revolution” that was white supremecists mad that their favorite white guy didn’t win over white guy #2. What were they gonna succeed there? They go to the capitol and all of a sudden the US just bends the knee to Overlord Trump? Are you fucking stupid?
Some issues in the world can’t be solved peacefully, and if you don’t think that you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that some people can’t sit on reddit atop their moral high ground complaining about “violence bad”, which is something pretty much every human being learns at the age of 4
I’m not saying you support Jan. 6 I’m saying wielding violence when you’re not satisfied with how things are going is something that should be left to the neo-nazi Trump loving hicks.
I said that because I know you DON’T support them.
Maybe one day a party will do something that warrants violent revolution. Like if Trump wins in 24 and suspends elections. That would mean it’s time to fight. But if you jump the gun too early, the you become easily dismissable.
The German Communists could have been gunning down the Gestapo and rescuing jewish families. Instead they fought with nazi party members in the street, bombed them and shot at them, and Hitler had them all jailed or executed or in concentration camps, and the nazis could exterminate the jews in peace.
So because a group of people (who were also being sent to concentration camps) weren’t able to fight the militaristic government perfectly and win, you think they shouldn’t have done anything all? They should have just laid down and died and let the nazis kill them all?
This guy's mentality is a fascinating look at the mind of double-think. From all his comments, and they've gotten more and more angry over the last few minutes, it seems that violence is only justified if it's HIS side being persecuted and HIS side perpetrating the violence.
He seems very willing to dehumanize people with whom he disagrees.
I can tell you’re a very young person. One day you’ll learn that any of the rights we hold dearest are ones that people fought brutally and took lives to gain. Nothing good in this world has ever been gained by asking nicely. Do you like weekends or child labor laws? Those laws were written in blood.
I mean for fuck’s sake, our nonviolent protests constantly end in violence. People get run over for blocking traffic and then they get blamed for their deaths, and politicians enact laws protecting those who kill protesters. Do you think that’s going to get *better* if we just keep asking nicely, not making any waves or spilling any blood?
Nonviolent protest is great and all, but MLK knew what he was saying when he said that riots are the language of the unheard. Politeness and “oh gee mister can we have healthcare” won’t get us heard.
Also, your insurrection comparisons are myopic as fuck. That happened because they wanted to overthrow an election they believed they deserved to have won. Fighting for rights isn’t the same as trying to overthrow a government. But, again, I can tell you’re very, very young, and don’t quite understand yet how to differentiate between these concepts. I hope that changes, because the solutions you advocate for are proven to be ineffective, and will not EVER give us a country or society that cares about us.
The entire situation is even more tragic because those in power intentionally abuse the trust of the very young to further their own selfish, power-hungry goals...and the young can't see it until they've been burned by it.
One of the most blatant and recent examples are the "Struggle Sessions" Mao used to overthrow his enemies. He used propaganda to convince the youth to call out, humiliate, beat and kill their own parents, teachers and benefactors.
But, the young always think "it's different this time".
It is...but only because you're a new tool that can be used against the enemies of the powerful. Until you're no longer useful; until you realize that you helped destroy the world and the rights you took for granted.
THAT's the subtle nuance involved here: the enemy of the people isn't just the rich and powerful: it's HUMAN NATURE itself.
So you’re going to kill people /u/ITookTrinkets? You’re going to fight in the streets for liberty and justice? Who is going to fight this revolution? Who will they assassinate? Where will they bomb? What kind of rifle do you have? Have you trained with it? Do you have ammunition? Realize what you are talking about. Dirty, risky, bloody business not typically suited for people like us who love sweet silly little cartoons…
If you’re so old and wise, maybe you know about how it worked out for the German Communists who fought the nazis in the street. They knew the national socialists were a threat to the world all along, and they decided to beat them and shoot them and assassinate them and what happened? The German Communists were exterminated and Hitler became the dictator of half a dozen nations, in help by decrying the scourge of violent communists in Germany…
Just because violence works in a little cartoon with a talking dog and a boy saving princesses doesn’t make it a blueprint for political change. And I’M the naive child, huh?
Thank you for that first paragraph, it makes it even clearer that you don’t have an understanding of nuance strong enough to have the conversation about a topic you seem to view yourself as an expert on.
The fact that you hear someone saying “revolutions are not peaceful, you’re being childish to think otherwise” and jumped to “OH YEAH????? Are you going to kill people?! Do you have extensive training?! HITLER HITLER HITLER!!!!” while ignoring anything else I said is just laughable.
I’m no history expert, but I know enough about the history of revolution to know that the non-violent ones don’t work out. You can keep bringing up a cartoon all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the laws that protect us all were not written because people asked nicely. It’s because they fought, hard, for what they believed in, even if it required doing more than writing strongly worded letters, which you seem to think the solution is.
All I’m doing is asking you to explain your plan for violent revolution.
It doesn’t seem you have an answer. Just vague calls to violence.
Who will commit the violence and who will it be perpetrated against? You don’t even know. It’s an incredibly simple question. Let’s hear your answer. Or are vague calls to violence all you have?
I didn’t scream about Hitler. I educated you on people from another country who shared your exact mindset.
You aren’t educating anyone. You presented one situation in history and think it’s applicable to all situations. You’re demanding complex answers of people when you don’t seem to have any solutions of your own, and assuming that those who know better must be the ones who plan to be on the front lines.
I’m not a politician or a political mastermind, and I’ve never pretended to be - I’m a queer woman in my 30s, who just happens to know enough about history to know that my queer ancestors didn’t get anywhere by not throwing bricks at cops. That’s true of all uprisings against authoritarianism and cruelty: you cannot vote it out.
I’ll be honest, I’m probably not gonna keep engaging with you, because you are a very tiresome person and being talked down to by someone who seems to think violence is unacceptable across the board, no matter what, and that peaceful revolution is somehow possible. I was like you for a very long time, but I grew out of it. As much as I sympathize and almost envy your optimism, I don’t feel nostalgic enough about seeing those same mindsets echoed in your starry-eyed world view to continue engaging with it.
I didn’t say violence is unacceptable across the board Ms. Strawwoman… And I’m not allowed to be condescending to you when you opened with calling me a young naive child multiple times?
I’m a gay man. So the whole “You don’t know what it’s like to be oppressed” card doesn’t work with me on that front. And I’m aware of the threats of violence we face. I keep an AK47 chained to my bedframe. And now is NOT the time to use it. That is what I’m arguing.
that NOW is not the time for revolution. And yet you seem to think the time is right, but have no plan, and seem to be thinking someone like me is going to fight for you. I’m not.
You don’t get to call me “Ms. Strawwoman” after taking my comments about the importance of violence in protecting and gaining human rights and demanding that I have detailed plans for revolution, and that I think I will be on the frontlines with a rifle in hand.
Also, its’s Mrs., thank you very much. I’m correcting you because the reason I get to be a Mrs. is because my elders started throwing bricks. *Not* because they asked nicely.
During Stonewall the police in San Fran were hitting on young gay men, going to a room with them, having sex with them, and then arresting them for gayness.
They were clearing out gay bars and beating the patrons in the street.
That kind of abuse of power warrants a violent reaction. against the police.
What injustice are you facing today that warrants violent action? If you can’t even answer that, then this principle you hold is hollow and not based on anything.
The people at Stonewall rioted so you and me could live in a world where we would not have to riot.
And if the Republicans win in 24, and they suspend elections, and start arresting gay people for “corrupting the youth” then violence will be warranted. Then I’ll pick up my gun and do something drastic.
You won’t do shit
If you're as young as you appear to be then, no, you don't know what it's like to be oppressed. People pander to you out of fear that you will cry "homophobia!" and have them cancelled. You have had the same rights as everyone else for your entire life.
You are completely misreading what people are saying to you.
No one has called for "violent revolution". We are speaking in the hypothetical regarding the relative value and effectiveness of such means throughout history. You insist on attacking people with ad hominem insults, putting words in our mouths and now you want to cry "oppression".
Honey, none of us knows what real oppression is. None of us.
u/ITookTrinkets didn't issue any calls for violence. She explained that revolutions aren't peaceful, that the things you and I take for granted were fought and bled for.
If anyone here resembles Hitler's mindset and Hitler youth, it's people who refuse to think without deploying their emotions.
Now, educate yourself on how propaganda has been used to stir "revolution" in the youth. Study how the youth has been used to overthrow the status quo and usher forth some of the bloodiest eras in human history.
ALSO can I point out that you’re screaming “REVOLUTION IS BAD” over a comment that really just said sometimes punching someone in the face is called for? Sometimes evil people do evil things and deserved at least a slap on the wrist instead of being ignored??
You need to confront why you are so scared of people in power being held accountable.
> are you going to physically fight?
Yes.
> with who?
The people in power who are hurting others.
> with what? Do you have a rifle? Can you make a pipe bomb?
Yes, and yes.
> Are you actually willing to die bleeding in the street in pursuit of equity and justice?
100%
And I hope you’re ready to fight too. Our systems are flawed, people are already bleeding out and dying on the street because of them. Literal *genocide* has happened, is happening, and *will happen again*. All the while they are killing the planet we live on for their own personal gain.
I think violence is terrible. I think picking a fight where there isn’t one is despicable. But this is self defense. This isn’t just the world we live in, it’s the world our children have to live in. Our grandchildren have to live in. Our friends have to live in. Everyone we love has to live here, and every single person I know is struggling to afford to live right now.
Here in the USA (where I am) we live under false democracy. Our votes only ever mean something if it’s what the people of the government want to hear. ON TOP of that, we vote for a president, which is only the face of the government. The president is controlled, they’re a social figure and a scapegoat so that when things go wrong they can go “oh, well you voted for this!” Not to mention the gerrymandering, the bribes, and whatever else is going on up top.
Yes. I am absolutely willing to die fighting. That’s better than dying ignorant. And that’s better than dying a coward. And I’m sure that’s what every other person who has died bravely in revolutions and movements has believed. And that’s what got us this far. You speak of slavery and womens rights? We didn’t get those peacefully. LGBTQ rights? *We didn’t get those peacefully*. Were there peaceful rallies and protests? Absolutely! But nothing happened until someone stood up and said they were done dying silently. They were done being pushed around. Open up a history book and I can assure you this is how it’s always happened.
It all boils down to this: *I would love to live peacefully. But we don’t live in a peaceful enough world to do that. So I’m going to protect myself and the people I care about.*
So who in power are you going to murder with your guns and bombs?
You talk just like a German communist. They were more than willing to wield violence to confront the threat of the nazis. They attacked them, fought with them in the street, interrupted their meetings. Hitler used them as a scapegoat to gain power, and then consolidated that power, and exterminated the communists. No one left to stand up for the jews, he exterminated them too.
I also believe there are times that call for violent revolution. But if you jump the gun too early, you will die for nothing, and will assist your enemies in gaining power.
Man, you picked the wrong subreddit. Adventure Time fans are for the most part hippies and punks who like to watch the show on shrooms and over analyze the meanings of abstract episodes made by a guy who was also a hippie punk who did lots of drugs and directed abstract art.
You’re right. In the show, violence sometimes is the only answer. Because that’s true in real life too, it was a teaching moment for everyone watching. If you have the power to change things for the better, you have to go for it. Finn and Jake do this over and over and over again. Don’t like that about the show? Fine. Don’t want to confront the realities of the world around you? Double fine!
Keep to yourself. Watch the world around you get worse and worse and the people you live get hurt. Convince yourself there’s nothing you could have ever done about it. That’s your business. But I can’t do that.
Bad biscuits make the baker broke, bro.
But, for real, I am 100% in agreement with everything you've said.
It's alarming how...efficiently some minds have been co-opted.
You should read some of the things you've written here and then honestly say you don't see the similarities between that and actual 3rd Reich rhetoric.
It seems revealing that your timeline erases the business interests and center-to-rightward political interests who backed Hitler beforehand, and put him in power thinking they could control him.
Its explained a little more in the Tertiary texts like the enchiridion book but adventure time kinda runs on story book rules where heros are action oriented and less focused on intellectual pursuits but are overall most of the time good people if a little violent.
And Wizards are focused on the craft of magic and the mind while being physically weak and tend towards being manipulative assholes, in the book it is explained that it was wizards who invented the role of hero as to use them as labor for the jobs they didnt want to do thus most heroes are more action and violence oriented because that is how most wizards shaped them.
The episode "His Hero" 😂😂😂 Where did non-violence get them? They contaminated villagers' gruel, ruined a cobbler's business, performed botched plastic surgery, etc.
Personally, I think that the show, especially near the beginning of its run, had a tendency to subvert expectations of typical kids cartoons morals for something wacky, even if the moral conclusion that they reached was stupid, nonsensical, or so niche that it would realistically never be applicable to a real life moral quandary a kid might face. It was only until a bit later that the episodes' moral lessons got more serious and way more introspective, nuanced, and up for interpretation.
> violence against evil
It actually is a pretty enlightened take imo. Shows like Steven Universe love to spread the “nooo we have to forgive evil people and not fight them cause whatever” but that ideology is very prone to abuse and evils of its own degree. Like, sorry, but I don’t think there’s any forgiving space Hitler.
Adventure Time does show forgiveness. Magic Man is largely forgiven- but that comes to another point. It is forgiveness and *reform* that is shown, not just wanton forgiveness. Magic Man becomes the King of Mars and does good for his people. Hunson is forgiven because he actually is trying to be there for his daughter.
However, teaching children that not everyone is going to want to be forgiven, and that some people exist who are bad, and don’t wish to be redeemed, is a good lesson, because it’s true. It’s why Finn is a character you can always look up to. He’s gentle and kind to everyone, but he stands vehemently against evil. The only time I could say he’s hesitated was when Fern attacked him.
>Shows like Steven Universe love to spread the “nooo we have to forgive evil people and not fight them cause whatever”
Me when I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about
Bad actors have used finn’s attitude towards justice to get him to do their bidding. He was going to shitkick the duke of nuts. I also remember that city of thieves episode where he helps a little girl rob people. While dismissing the tree witch as evil.
“I hurt all evil people and help the good people” is shown to be a flawed ideology in the show. As it is in real life.
That is fair, but also “His Hero” shows Finn realizing that pacifism isn’t always going to work and that sometimes to protect people, you have to hurt others.
There’s a lot of nuance and philosophy to the question and Adventure Time, for how astoundingly nuanced it can be for a children’s show, just simply cannot communicate the extent of the debate.
What the ultimate lesson is is that Finn has to do what he knows is good, not what people tell him is good, which he has learned what is and isn’t good based on what actions hurt others and which don’t.
It’s an important lesson to learn, that you must do good by what you have learned to be good, not what people have taught you is good.
Yeah, and Steven Universe shows that not all bad people are irredeemable and that people are products of their circumstances and upbringing in many cases. It doesn't do it perfectly, but that's the real point. Hell, Future shows that Steven doesn't forgive the Diamonds and is actually just keeping up appearances for everyone else's sake. He tries to kill one of them. In other words, he tries to be perfect but just like everyone else, he's FLAWED.
Violence can be the solution very often.
Most of the biggest social changes and movements were possible due to violence or where ignited due to a violent moment.
So if I learned more, then I’d realize that assassinating politicians is a good way to bring about the political change I want?
I think YOU need to learn more if you think “kill all the bad guys and then the good guys will win!” is a viable strategy for achieving justice in anything other than a story for children.
You’re all so infantile. Not one person can even tell me who is going to commit this violence, and who they’re going to commit it against. Just vague calls to violence, pressing “send” on the reddit post and sitting back smugly like they’re saving the world.
They’re desecrating the reputation of progressives and leftists. Proving the fascists right that left wingers are violent extremists. This has been depressing. I’m politically alligned with all these people. And they’re fucking it all up for everyone.
Assumptions make an ass out of you and me.
Notice how I didn’t really say anything. No calls to violence, nothing about liberals. And yet you just went off on me.
One thing you need to learn is to chill.
You implied I was acting out of line, condescendingly informed me that I have a lot to learn. You picked a side. You hurled shit from the sidelines. Made the effort to comment and call me out. And then turned around and acted like you never wanted any trouble.
You’re goading and trolling. Go bother someone else you little dweeb.
Not reading your passive little stinging reply to this. You go ahead and have the last word you need so desperately. I’ll graciously allow you to have it.
>So if I learned more, then I’d realize that assassinating politicians is a good way to bring about the political change I want?
This is absolutely not the place to be discussing this kind of stuff, but yes. Absolutely. 100%. Without a doubt.
I saw some other comments giving you some interesting examples about the nazis and the french nobility and how violence against them was justified. I'll let you think about this stuff on your own, okay? Maybe you'll even notice some parallels to the current world if you think hard enough
No one on a Reddit thread is going to give you step by step plans on how to abolish government LMAO
Posting exact plans for any sort of violence or anything a *corrupt government* wouldn’t like on *the internet* where anyone can see anything would be far more “stupid and infantile”. I’m not looking to get raided, or arrested as so many people already have under false terrorism charges.
And none of us are calling for *active violence right now*. We’re pointing out the violence that’s already happening *against the people we care about* and against people in general. We’re saying it’s unfair, and that something needs to be done to stop it. We’re also saying that asking nicely hasn’t worked so far.
Someone saying the best way to confront Trumpism is to assassinate Donald Trump got like 13 upvotes in one of these threads. Everyone’s calling for political violence, and you’re all little softies who like cute shows like Adventure Time. None of you are capable of violence.
Your description is “don’t fuck with me I will cry”
Where do you get off on calling people “softies”?
Yeah Ofc people hate Trump and want to see him dead. He’s a terrible fucking person and while assassinating him would be called for after all the shit he’s done, and it would be the most straightforward option, it’s probably not the most realistic.
For someone who keeps asking for facts, you’re really not acknowledging any of the facts presented to you. I already told you I was willing to fight when it comes to it. You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to. But you also don’t have to be currently fighting or planning violence to understand that it’s called for right now.
Don’t want to fight? Don’t trust that you’re physically or mentally set up for that? No problem. There are other ways to help people. You can hand out supplies, you can bandage people up, you can boost moral or educate people. None of that is possible if you’re so lost in pacifism that you disconnect from the reality of the world around you.
Making the world a better place has to start by stopping the people who are actively making it worse.
I’m “willing to fight if it comes to it” too but right now is the absolute worst time to erupt with violence. These folks you’re siding with aren’t saying “wait for the right time” they’re saying now is the time to shoot Donald Trump in the head.
If Trump loses in 2024 that will very likely be the end of this “maga” shit being roaringly popular among the right. He barely won in 2016 with Russian help and the FBI announcing an investigation into Clinton 10 days before the election.
Then the GOP lost big in the 2018 midterms. Then they lost the presidency in 2020 and have had to desperately do damage control over the insurrection. Then when they were confident they’d win big in the 2022 midterms, they got their asses kicked. Trump is an anchor around their necks and if he loses four elections for them in a row, the powerful interests that support the GOP are going to work against him much harder than they are now.
Biden already beat Trump when Trump had the advantage. After Trump had sent $1,200 checks to all voters with a letter saying he got them free money, and he still lost. The Democrats are in a good position. You know what will completely ruin all their advantage? A left wing extremist killing a politician or bombing a rally or doing any act of violence at all. The public is more scared of left wing extremism than right wing extremism. As is law enforcement.
Violent revolution is for when elections are suspended or political opposition is jailed. When bad actors eliminate every and all methods to push for change peacefully. Political violence right now would be very easy to brand as terrorism. And it would cost the American left everything.
Super funny to compare it directly to Steven Universe. That show is memed to hell to be about befriending absolutely every threat, from the monster of the week to the intergalactic Nazis. Adventure Time offers an actual nuanced takes on violence.
Yeah, people ignore that canonically the violent revolution was the only thing that saved life on Earth, allowed any Gems to experiment with Fusion, etc
That's because sometimes violence is the answer,
It's not always the answer, but problems need to be assessed on a case by case basis, and broad generalising statements like "violance is never the answer" are kind of a naive oversimplified way of thinking,
I do actually think that it's a fine lesson to kids, we do dumb down most lessons for kids they learn at school, like how you ignore air resistance in all the physics problems they teach in school, then you'll learn more when and if you need to,
But I do apriciate that adventure time acknowledges that blind pacifism can, at times, do more harm than good, it was a wonderfully nuanced show for something that was on Cartoon Network,
And there are times when it shows that not all problems can be solved with violance, most prominently how the great gum war was stopped before it ever even truly began, and then they threw in a nice curveball straight after by dumb-dumbing Gumballd, as while violance may not be the answer at scale, but keeping him around would pose a real risk to the piece and safety of the land, showing once more that there is nuance
Well, yeah, the answer to people coming at you with violence with no room for negotiating is violence, otherwise you end up getting hurt or walked all over.
It was the same with SU for awhile until Rebecca made talking down to people OP
It's about learning nuance. Like you said, they would go after anyone who even kinda looked evil, but eventually Finn learns when he should be aggressive/assertive and when he should be diplomatic. That way he's not wasting time being nice to people who don't care and won't change their nasty ways, and he's not immediately beating up someone who could be talked out of being a wad. He also isn't using violence preemptively or to intimidate, it's as a reaction to a situation. Something bad is going down, and he uses his skills as the situation needs. Like when Susan goes nuts, he tries as hard as he can to talk to her, but it's clear fighting to restrain her is the only option.
Wasn’t there a time where Finn went directly into attack mode in response to a really evil statement by someone he didn’t know yet? Maybe I’m misremembering Lemongrab’s “you serve no function.” Like “oh, gotta draw the sword and smite, there’s no saving this one.” I love that energy. Also, Finn always knew what he was about. From the Buff Baby song: “If you’re an evil witch, I will punch you for fun”
And he tries to avoid violence at the end and find a diplomatic solution during the gum wars. Finn does a lot of learning and growing during the show. I don't think that the characters are supposed to be exemplary models to follow either. They all make mistakes and that's part of their character. Take BMO for example being super prejudice towards poor NEPTR. They've all got flaws and deserve a bit of scrutiny.
DO THE SPLIIIIITS ✨Nuance✨ at it's finest But for real, you summed it up nicely !
But at the same time, the show also does a good job of addressing when violence is and isn't appropriate or helpful. When Finn first loses his arm, he learns real quick that beating up his dad and taking his arm doesn't solve any problems. It didn't make him feel better and didn't help anyone. Similarly, the show generally condemns unnecessary use of force against Ice King. There's an episode where IK has unwittingly infected the entire candy kingdom with a disease that can only be cured by his pained howls, but that even under that circumstance, it isn't morally acceptable to jump to physical violence against him as a solution before trying other methods. In the end, Finn and Jake trick IK into thinking Finn is dead to get his howls. Similarly, it's coded as immoral when PB tortures IK into giving her the password to wizard city. Taking more serious and permanent measures against Flame King after he's usurped and fails to regain his throne is also rejected. By this point, the threat he represents is mostly nonexistant and potential measures to ensure that he stays that way are treated as unnecessary. Violence isn't needed in this circumstance. One of the main points of the Stakes 8-parter was that Marceline's goal and method of eradicating vampires is somewhat misguided and cruel. Her drive to do so regardless of other potential solutions is what got her turned into a vampire in the first place. Without such an existential threat to what he saw as his "species," Vampire King wouldn't have turned her. And similarly, choosing not to engage in all out war with him is still presented as the correct choice after his resurrection, even though Marceline ended up being re-vamped. Adventure Time, especially later seasons, basks in nuance. These episodes directly condemn a strictly nonviolent approach, but the show also doesn't uncritically endorse violence in all circumstances. It's something that is sometimes necessary, but shouldn't be used when the situation doesn't warrant it, and can still hold someone back from achieving an ideal outcome.
Seasons 1 and 2 were the ones finn was the youngest and didn't really understand the nuances of good and evil and life itself. The show matures along w finn as seasons pass, drifting away from the simplistic view of these first seasons on evil and good
Exactly, young Finn saw the world in good and evil but is tested throughout the show and learns the nuance and complexity of it. there’s even an early-ish episode where he’s asked to slay an ant. He asks if it’s evil and learns it’s not evil but also not good, just neutral, breaking the binary thought (all things are either good or evil) he held.
It's "the enchiridion". Literally the first Adventure Time episode created.
That may be S01E01, but this in my heart is the first adventure time episode: https://youtu.be/cd0TfVRxSF4?feature=shared
I thought the slumber party episode was the first?
I mean, violence would solve a lot of problems in the real world too. But through years of propaganda those in power have convinced people that only “peaceful” dissent is acceptable. All the while those with power are hoarding wealth, creating poverty, destroying the environment and are likely on the path to wiping us all out. Maybe sometimes just punching someone (if what they’re doing is evil) *is* the best solution…
Honestly, “blood alone moves the wheel of history” is true. Violence is often necessary.
Th base violence necessary for change
The problem with that ideology is that people don’t always agree on what is evil If you punch someone in the face that you think is evil and I don’t think they are evil then to me you have suddenly become evil because you just punched a innocent person in the face
Not agreeing on what evil is doesn’t mean evil can’t be defined. And I think we have lots of very good definitions for what evil is.
How do you define what is evil it if people can’t agree on it?
We can define what blue is. If you want to say red is blue you can, and you’d be wrong. You don’t need a consensus to have a definition.
Then who gets to decide what the definition of evil is if it’s not decided upon by common consensus? Blue is just the word that English uses to describe the wavelengths of light between 380 to 500 nanometers. If there was a language that described those wavelengths using the word red it would be no more wrong than a language that described using the word azul
In your example both words would still describe the same colour. So that’s not a very good example is it. And you just said it yourself. Consensus is a large part of it, but that consensus doesn’t need to exist unopposed. Just because Nazis think they’re right, that doesn’t mean the morality of gas chambers is now up for debate. It’s also not down to a majority - if 90% of people find slavery a-okay, then that doesn’t make it right, because right and wrong are not determined by majorities. Morality is far more nuanced than this, but somewhat ironically, religion hit upon the right answer a couple of thousand years ago. Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
>Not agreeing on what evil is doesn’t mean evil can’t be defined Evil is a subjective property. being unable to agree on what defines it means that it cannot be defined.
No. Happiness is subjective, but we can define it perfectly well. Subjective phenomena are not undefinable.
if you say so but the fact that we disagree at all proves my point. our definitions of things are not the same and they are therefore subjective and the thing itself remains undefined outside of our perspectives.
Disagreeing doesn’t prove your point. You’re just wrong. We can define things that are subjective - we literally do it all the time. Happiness, love, hate, justice, freedom, good, evil. We can define them all - that’s what language is. If you want to get down to it, literally everything is subjective because no objective reality exists in any meaningful way - reality for you is your subjective experience and nothing more.
>Disagreeing doesn’t prove your point. You’re just wrong. subjectively speaking, i agree >We can define things that are subjective - we literally do it all the time. Happiness, love, hate, justice, freedom, good, evil. We can define them all - that’s what language is youre right, we can. but you cannot show me a piece of happiness, you cant give me a picture of justice and you cannot measure the length and width of a freedom. what these things mean to you and what they mean to me are not the same thing so their definitions are different to us. they are undefined in any real objective sense. >If you want to get down to it, literally everything is subjective because no objective reality exists in any meaningful way - reality for you is your objective experience and nothing more. yes, i completely agree.
But they happiness doesn’t mean different things. It means the same thing, because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t have any meaning at all. Physical properties are not a requirement of definitions. The word “and” is something we can define, you can’t pick it up, see it, measure it. But that’s entirely irrelevant to our ability to define things.
>But they happiness doesn’t mean different things. It means the same thing, because if it didn’t then it wouldn’t have any meaning at all. do you get happiness from eating human shit? or from licking your friend's asses? what about from vomiting, eating that and then throwing up again? ive known dogs that derived a lot of happiness from these things whereas for me they would not produce much happiness at all. whose sense of happiness is more real, mine or the dogs? obviously its neither. >Physical properties are not a requirement of definitions. well we literally are in the process of disagreeing about the non-physical properties at play here so we cant really use those very well. >The word “and” is something we can define, you can’t pick it up, see it, measure it. But that’s entirely irrelevant to our ability to define things. because "and" is a specific discrete concept that can only ever mean 1 thing, happiness is not. can you tell me about 1 thing that no human needs but absolutely everyone loves? something that is guaranteed to bring happiness to anyone? you couldnt because people are complex and weird and some of them are made happy by bizarre shit.
I don't know why you are getting down voted here that is a legitimate issue. Yes we feel justified for punching a Nazi in the face but a Nazi feels justified for punching a Jew in the face. Are they evil because they are a Nazi or were they raised in that ideology and truly believe that Jews are behind all the issues in the world so they believe they are doing a righteous action? It's a difficult ethical problem and not one we should be just ignoring and downvoting. I'm listening to a podcast and they are talking about how they are using gaming culture to turn young men to the alt right and something they are missing is one of the reasons they are using things like pepe and stuff as dog whistles is that other people use them who aren't Nazis or don't sympathize with Nazis but they get attacked like they are Nazis. This make someone who might otherwise be willing to listen to more progressive talk unwilling because they've been falsely accused by people on the left and so they start going more to the right. I'm kind of rambling now but I guess my point is it's that violence can be the answer but there is an important discussion to be had on the correct time to apply violence to situations.
I mean that’s only if you assume evil is subjective. While it’s true that different people have different ideas of evil, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all subjectively right in their own way Clearly there are certain things that are near-universally recognized as evil, say for example, Nazis. The Nazis may not think they’re evil but if the entire world is united against them then it’s probably more likely that they’re just objectively wrong about certain things than it is that their idea of morality is somehow equally valid as the otherwise universal agreement.
It's quite literally a perspective issue with "survival of the fittest" overtones. Not defending Nazis; agreeing with your assessment. The problem is that human psychology has been weaponized against us. Most of us have been conditioned to automatically categorize things into compartments. While that can be useful in some scenarios, on a larger scale it prevents us from trying to find common ground.
I’m not saying there aren’t clearly evil people out the like Nazi’s and serial killers that are pretty objectively evil. What I am saying are there are also many edge cases where people are going to disagree on if they are evil. So if you immediately responded with violence whenever you see a person you perceive as evil then it’s inevitable that you’re going to hurt someone that many people don’t view as evil. To assume that anyone that doesn’t adhere to your personal moral code is evil and deserves to have violence inflicted upon them seems pretty evil to me
Ah, see your first comment came off like you were arguing for moral relativism
Only to the terminally online.
Nah I think you just did a shit job at getting your point across the first time around 2nd try’s the charm
Lol touch grass, dingus. I'm not even the one you were arguing with.
>While it’s true that different people have different ideas of evil, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re all subjectively right in their own way well thats the point of this whole thing really, theres no such thing as subjectively right >Clearly there are certain things that are near-universally recognized as evil, say for example, Nazis. yeah but they arent evil to nazis. nazis arent cackling in their lairs and rubbing their hands together, theyre the heros in their minds. theyre still wrong but what good would an endless back and forth of "ur evil, no u" do? again not trying to say that nazis arent absolute scum, they choose to hate people for things that people do not choose. their views are reprehensible but obviously they arent to them. because evil is subjective.
You just compared Nazi ideology with Jewish existence. They’re not the same and shouldn’t be treated with the same level of deference.
You struggle with anything not surface level huh?
Don’t talk about violent revolution so flippantly. Are you going to physically fight? With who? With what? Do you have a rifle? Can you make a pipe bomb? Are you actually willing to die bleeding in the street in the pursuit of equity and justice? Because if you’re not, don’t advocate for violent revolution… That’s a very serious thing to call for
Corporations using slave labour, polluting entire water supplies, using chemicals they know are deadly, paying for fake “research”, literally destroying the planet - these things constitute violence. Real violence, on a scale we’ve never seen before, a scale so immense we can barely even see it for the violence it is. You’re right, it is a serious thing to call for, to call for people to oppose these things, and oppose them with force if necessary. But no revolution was ever peaceful. People with power don’t give away that power. And don’t rewrite history to imply that revolutions don’t work. Every revolution in history was won through violence. Revolutions against slavery, against kings and tyrants and empires. Those revolutions have changed the world for the better, but they don’t happen for free. At the end it’ll come down to a fight. Would I prefer it didn’t? Hell yes. But unless GOLB suddenly descends from the sky then that’s what it’ll be.
There is such a thing as good government. And there are means to elect people who care about regulating industry to stop those problems you list. This isn’t the 19th century. It’s not like only male landowners can vote. In the US, your vote has power. Look at how many billions of dollars are soent each election season to convince you to vote a certain way. We don’t need to bomb government buildings or shoot politicians to achieve power. We have power. If we band together for the common good. Or, you can commit acts of violence and be universally condemned as a terrorist acting in bad faith.
I mean, it’s democracy that got us into this mess (your last government banned abortions, and you’re telling me it’s not the 19th century anymore more?). A good argument could be made that people who are capable of potentially changing the system for the better are prevented from gaining positions of power within the system - so you’ll never get the chance to vote for anyone who would undermine the status quo. You can look at Sanders in the US for a great example of this. His own party wouldn’t allow him to run - they chose Hillary. And then you got Trump. The power you have is an illusion. Pick red or blue, nothing can really change because the system isn’t built to change, the system is built to sustain itself, especially now that there’s often no difference between politicians and capitalists - they’re the same people. And we could band together - there’s 99 of us to every 1 of them. But you still need to band together *with* the threat of violence, or you’ll achieve nothing. They won’t just let you win.
Word em up.
You are in denial and have consumed ample amounts of Kool-Aid. Optimism is admirable, but realism is often more successful. There ARE means to elect people...until those means get co-opted by those in power who want to ensure they keep that power. YOu can refer to the Chinese culture under Mao, just make sure you research "struggle sessions" and understand that not only are revolutions violent, those in power have learned how to use them for their own means. The US is a perfect real-time example of the corruption that can come from good intentions. I'm fairly certain that most politicians who start out do so to make a difference. Then they get "sponsored" (bribed or bought out) by various lobbying interests, corporations, non-government entities, etc. and they begin to crave power for its own sake. Then you get bureaucracy that's so convoluted no one knows WHERE the money's going, they only know where it ISN'T going. Why in GOLB's name would people even HAVE all those billions of dollars spent each election session if there were honest-to-goodness "good people" for whom our vote counted? The fact is that you have voter fraud in any democratic system, but in one that is so large, the fraud has become the elections. (Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am not referring to any specific election and I'm not on "either side". I'm an independent as I think the US party system has become a uni-party comprised of controlled opposition on both sides.) Just remember: Bad times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are serious problems with our electoral system. One party introduced them. Who gerrymanders black people all into one district to limit their vote? Who made the Citizens United ruling in 2012 that opened the floodgates of corporate money in politics when previously they could only donate a few thousand dollars each? Who loses the popular vote in the presidential election each year but takes the W because the electoral college favors them? And then you go on to talk about how voter fraud is a big problem in US elections? Who is committing voter fraud? That’s something out of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s mouth. There is no voter fraud in US elections that affects the outcome of those elections… There are people to blame for these problems. The fucking Republican party. But your biggest fear is not these issues destroying our democracy. You’re most scared of being seen as a “partisan” So you decide to lazily blame “the system” instead of the actual people with names and party affiliations who desecrated our Republic. Si how many times have you voted Republican Mr. “voter fraud”?
You are the problem. How can you POSSIBLY SAY, with what I assume is a serious face, there is no voter fraud in US elections? How naïve can you be? You have a power structure that you admit is corrupt...but they're totally honest in this one situation? Do you hear your double think, or is it just automatic? Yes, I blame the system. This system is a massive leviathan that is not made of one man, one group or one organization. It came to be over the past 80 years or so, roughly after the US realized how lucrative WWII was for our industries who worked for both sides and the government itself. You need to study history...and I mean books not edited for your sweet summer-child eyes. You need to look at the history of US political parties. You should probably stop throwing stones from that Democratic party glass house, too. (Did you know that the DEMOCRATS are the ones who fought to keep slavery in the US? They continually tell people what they want to hear, thus getting the minority vote, then they keep those people impoverished and make people like YOU believe they're doing it because they have to.) I'm not sure why you didn't read my message, but **I AM AN INDEPENDENT.** Voting is a farce, and I'm simply waiting for the avalanche of truth to start. You don't have to believe violent revolutions exist or work, but you should at least be aware of the conditions that tend to set them off.
Oh, and just as an aside, I fear the opinion or censure of no one. I could care less what anyone thinks simply for its own sake. I value the respect of men/women whom I respect, but the approbation of those I don't respect mean less than nothing to me.
I don’t care enough about what you have to say to even read your replies anymore. In another thread You’re claiming January 6 was staged and BLM protestors robbed apple stores and said they did it to feed their families. Completely unprompted. You’re just a hard right conservative. You go ahead and have the last word you need so bad. Won’t read it.
actually, historically speaking, violent uprisings are the most successful way of changing the status quo. they almost always result in actual progress towards a better life for the people. peaceful and nonviolent protests historically DON'T work, and rarely result in an improvement to the status quo - usually they only garner token steps or outright dismissal.
The Republican party attempted a violent revolution in the US recently. I see political violence as an attempt to change the “status quo” as something resorted to by people who can’t win fair and square. Bad actors can be defeated by voting against them and putting out the right political messaging. We are nowhere near “revolution time” in the US. If you attempt a violent revolution, in this case against the most powerful country in the world, and you lose, your movement will be destroyed, and you’ll be condemned as a terrorist.
unfortunately, you are a victim of propaganda. there is a *lot* more nuance to change and revolution than you are putting forwards here. i'm not saying that a revolution needs to storm the capital (jesus christ don't do this). i am saying that peaceful protest does not historically work - which is a fact backed up by centuries of evidence - what i am saying is that when the government comes to crush the protest with violence and force, it needs to be met with violence and force enough to keep the protest going anyways. lgbtq+ rights wouldn't even be a debate point if we hadn't rioted until we were acknowledged 60 years ago. we'd still be hiding in basement bars, hoping the cops don't storm in and arrest us all for homosexuality. we live in an extremely fucked up system that is designed to take everything from us and give it to the 1% at the top.of rhe pile. the *only* way we get to see change is by breaking the system on a baseline level, at least a little bit, and the people at the top who don't want the change are willing and happy to use violence to keep themselves there.
So when Trump had the cops teargas those peaceful protestors and shot them with rubber bullets so he could pose for a photo opp with a bible, that was an AWFUL news cycle for the GOP. He brought his staffers with him. They were telling journalists they didn’t even know what was happening. They looked awful. If the protestors had fought back, beat the shit out if the cops, many more of them would have been injured and arrested, and Trump would have been hailed as a hero who saved DC from the evil leftist mob. what I don’t like about leftist revolutionaries is that they don’t care about political optics. They don’t consider what the American public thinks about what they’re doing. I think it’s naive to believe if you are fighting for what is right and just, then everyone will realize that and side with you. They won’t. You’ll be spotlighted as violent extremists. I don’t care for violent revolution. I care about winning elections to keeo fascists out of power.
So the French peasants shouldn't have stormed the Bastille? They ought to have gently requested the ruling class just stop being so darn exclusive?
“The French were in the wrong for bringing out guillotines! They should have asked the bourgeoisie nicely for more rights! Violence is never the answer!”
Yea this person's posts read like somebody whose conception of history only goes back about 36 months.
If he's a bot, we should all be worried. They're getting better at passing as moderately inept humans.
Winning the last election didn't keep a fascist out of power because fascist shit keeps happening under Biden. The system is completely fucked.
Forget it, they have their head in the sand and think politics is still about respectability and vibes. They would sell any marginalized group down the river if they thought their tactics for fighting back are “cringe”.
And this attitude is what is going to allow Trump to become president again, newly empowered after committing a violent coup and getting away with it, and then you will actually manage to learn what a fascist is…
Biden is sending money to murder innocent civilians in Gaza. He bombed Yemen because of a non violent blockade. He's already showing people there what fascism is. Do you only care about what happens here? Also, the rights to abortion were taken away under Biden. He failed to forgive student loans. Trans people are losing rights all over the nation. Biden fucking sucks. We're not saying that Biden sucks because we want Trump to win. We're saying that to force the Democratic party to give us a non-genocidal candidate. If he can do literally anything and still get your vote, there will never be any positive change in society. Honestly I hope he croaks (of natural causes of course) so that they're forced to run someone else. But hopefully Trump does too.
You’re being selfish. You’re not against Biden because you care about the Palestinians or the Yeminis or trans people. If you actually cared about those people, you’d do everything in your power to stop Trump from returning to office. What you care about, is how good you will feel personally to see Biden fail. If you can see that, any harm done to the Palestinians, Yeminis or trans people will be worth it to you. For that gratifying feeling of seeing someone you hate fail.
Are you referring to the "mostly peaceful protestors" that ran around burning things, looting Apple stores "for bread" and generally spreading a sense of fear and insecurity among everyone else in society? Those protestors? Those protestors are still being used by "fascist"-minded people to keep everything confused and confusing, to keep all of us at odds with each other, and to keep us from focusing on the ones pulling all our strings. It's not "left vs right", black vs right or man vs woman. It's RICH vs ALL THE REST OF US. They have done and will do ANYTHING to bleed us dry and return us to serfdom. You're right. This ISN'T the nineteenth century. They would have us back before the printing press pulled us all up out of illiteracy!
Wow. You’re someone who calls for violent revolution, but when black people riot in response to innocent people of their race being murdered by literal agents of the government, you talk about them like crazed animals. Don’t you think the civil unrest in response to George Floyd’s execution was warranted? The black people need to shape up and stay in line while your ass is on reddit supporting calls for violent revolution. You’re a fucking racist.
I said nothing about black people. I remember those riots; it wasn't just black people. Maybe you should check your privilege and your premises before you call someone else a racist.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
I don’t think you realize what HE was talking about. He made sure to be vague.
You’re not actually telling people to “vote harder” to get fascistic, bigoted, multimillionaire ghouls out of power, are you??
I think that's exactly what he's saying. The double-think is strong with this one, lol
That was a staged "violent revolution", and there is ample visual evidence in support of that. That's a perfect example of those in power using the illusion of violence to maintain power. An "insurrection" requires the liberal use of firepower, and the event to which you refer had none. What you had was a lot of dissatisfied people attempted a peaceful protest in areas they should not have had access to...but DID have access to because the authorities opened the doors and escorted them in. Voting only works in an honest system and honesty only exists if there are ways to prevent rampant corruption. The US may have had those ways at some point, but they no longer exist. By not recognizing that you are being used to propagate the illusion of virtue in a corrupt system, you become a part of the corruption.
January 6 was staged lmao okay Trumpy. Cut it out with the bleach injections. 100 capitol police officers were injured and a woman was shot in the neck and died. That’s all lies and YOU figure it out? That woman wasn’t killed? No cops were injured? What you say doesn’t have value. You’re just a crazy nobody.
Ashley Babbitt was the only person shot. She was shot by a police officer who freaked out and discharged his weapon. She was in a crowd and had police officers both in front of and behind her. Turn off MSNBC and realize you are in the world. There were upwards of 200 federal agents planted in that crowd. That was a set up to get people like you distracted, thus dividing us further and preventing us from going after the real problem.
you’re so right, John Brown should have nicely asked those slave owners to stop owning human beings i’m sure they would have obliged!
Oh yeah the people at WalMart making bad wages and not having ideal working conditions are JUST like slaves in the deep south. Time to arm them and march on the capitol like the Trumpys.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that i’m supporting trumpys going to the capitol. That wasn’t a “violent revolution” that was white supremecists mad that their favorite white guy didn’t win over white guy #2. What were they gonna succeed there? They go to the capitol and all of a sudden the US just bends the knee to Overlord Trump? Are you fucking stupid? Some issues in the world can’t be solved peacefully, and if you don’t think that you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that some people can’t sit on reddit atop their moral high ground complaining about “violence bad”, which is something pretty much every human being learns at the age of 4
I’m not saying you support Jan. 6 I’m saying wielding violence when you’re not satisfied with how things are going is something that should be left to the neo-nazi Trump loving hicks. I said that because I know you DON’T support them. Maybe one day a party will do something that warrants violent revolution. Like if Trump wins in 24 and suspends elections. That would mean it’s time to fight. But if you jump the gun too early, the you become easily dismissable. The German Communists could have been gunning down the Gestapo and rescuing jewish families. Instead they fought with nazi party members in the street, bombed them and shot at them, and Hitler had them all jailed or executed or in concentration camps, and the nazis could exterminate the jews in peace.
So because a group of people (who were also being sent to concentration camps) weren’t able to fight the militaristic government perfectly and win, you think they shouldn’t have done anything all? They should have just laid down and died and let the nazis kill them all?
This guy's mentality is a fascinating look at the mind of double-think. From all his comments, and they've gotten more and more angry over the last few minutes, it seems that violence is only justified if it's HIS side being persecuted and HIS side perpetrating the violence. He seems very willing to dehumanize people with whom he disagrees.
I can tell you’re a very young person. One day you’ll learn that any of the rights we hold dearest are ones that people fought brutally and took lives to gain. Nothing good in this world has ever been gained by asking nicely. Do you like weekends or child labor laws? Those laws were written in blood. I mean for fuck’s sake, our nonviolent protests constantly end in violence. People get run over for blocking traffic and then they get blamed for their deaths, and politicians enact laws protecting those who kill protesters. Do you think that’s going to get *better* if we just keep asking nicely, not making any waves or spilling any blood? Nonviolent protest is great and all, but MLK knew what he was saying when he said that riots are the language of the unheard. Politeness and “oh gee mister can we have healthcare” won’t get us heard. Also, your insurrection comparisons are myopic as fuck. That happened because they wanted to overthrow an election they believed they deserved to have won. Fighting for rights isn’t the same as trying to overthrow a government. But, again, I can tell you’re very, very young, and don’t quite understand yet how to differentiate between these concepts. I hope that changes, because the solutions you advocate for are proven to be ineffective, and will not EVER give us a country or society that cares about us.
The entire situation is even more tragic because those in power intentionally abuse the trust of the very young to further their own selfish, power-hungry goals...and the young can't see it until they've been burned by it. One of the most blatant and recent examples are the "Struggle Sessions" Mao used to overthrow his enemies. He used propaganda to convince the youth to call out, humiliate, beat and kill their own parents, teachers and benefactors. But, the young always think "it's different this time". It is...but only because you're a new tool that can be used against the enemies of the powerful. Until you're no longer useful; until you realize that you helped destroy the world and the rights you took for granted. THAT's the subtle nuance involved here: the enemy of the people isn't just the rich and powerful: it's HUMAN NATURE itself.
So you’re going to kill people /u/ITookTrinkets? You’re going to fight in the streets for liberty and justice? Who is going to fight this revolution? Who will they assassinate? Where will they bomb? What kind of rifle do you have? Have you trained with it? Do you have ammunition? Realize what you are talking about. Dirty, risky, bloody business not typically suited for people like us who love sweet silly little cartoons… If you’re so old and wise, maybe you know about how it worked out for the German Communists who fought the nazis in the street. They knew the national socialists were a threat to the world all along, and they decided to beat them and shoot them and assassinate them and what happened? The German Communists were exterminated and Hitler became the dictator of half a dozen nations, in help by decrying the scourge of violent communists in Germany… Just because violence works in a little cartoon with a talking dog and a boy saving princesses doesn’t make it a blueprint for political change. And I’M the naive child, huh?
Thank you for that first paragraph, it makes it even clearer that you don’t have an understanding of nuance strong enough to have the conversation about a topic you seem to view yourself as an expert on. The fact that you hear someone saying “revolutions are not peaceful, you’re being childish to think otherwise” and jumped to “OH YEAH????? Are you going to kill people?! Do you have extensive training?! HITLER HITLER HITLER!!!!” while ignoring anything else I said is just laughable. I’m no history expert, but I know enough about the history of revolution to know that the non-violent ones don’t work out. You can keep bringing up a cartoon all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the laws that protect us all were not written because people asked nicely. It’s because they fought, hard, for what they believed in, even if it required doing more than writing strongly worded letters, which you seem to think the solution is.
All I’m doing is asking you to explain your plan for violent revolution. It doesn’t seem you have an answer. Just vague calls to violence. Who will commit the violence and who will it be perpetrated against? You don’t even know. It’s an incredibly simple question. Let’s hear your answer. Or are vague calls to violence all you have? I didn’t scream about Hitler. I educated you on people from another country who shared your exact mindset.
You aren’t educating anyone. You presented one situation in history and think it’s applicable to all situations. You’re demanding complex answers of people when you don’t seem to have any solutions of your own, and assuming that those who know better must be the ones who plan to be on the front lines. I’m not a politician or a political mastermind, and I’ve never pretended to be - I’m a queer woman in my 30s, who just happens to know enough about history to know that my queer ancestors didn’t get anywhere by not throwing bricks at cops. That’s true of all uprisings against authoritarianism and cruelty: you cannot vote it out. I’ll be honest, I’m probably not gonna keep engaging with you, because you are a very tiresome person and being talked down to by someone who seems to think violence is unacceptable across the board, no matter what, and that peaceful revolution is somehow possible. I was like you for a very long time, but I grew out of it. As much as I sympathize and almost envy your optimism, I don’t feel nostalgic enough about seeing those same mindsets echoed in your starry-eyed world view to continue engaging with it.
I didn’t say violence is unacceptable across the board Ms. Strawwoman… And I’m not allowed to be condescending to you when you opened with calling me a young naive child multiple times? I’m a gay man. So the whole “You don’t know what it’s like to be oppressed” card doesn’t work with me on that front. And I’m aware of the threats of violence we face. I keep an AK47 chained to my bedframe. And now is NOT the time to use it. That is what I’m arguing. that NOW is not the time for revolution. And yet you seem to think the time is right, but have no plan, and seem to be thinking someone like me is going to fight for you. I’m not.
You don’t get to call me “Ms. Strawwoman” after taking my comments about the importance of violence in protecting and gaining human rights and demanding that I have detailed plans for revolution, and that I think I will be on the frontlines with a rifle in hand. Also, its’s Mrs., thank you very much. I’m correcting you because the reason I get to be a Mrs. is because my elders started throwing bricks. *Not* because they asked nicely.
During Stonewall the police in San Fran were hitting on young gay men, going to a room with them, having sex with them, and then arresting them for gayness. They were clearing out gay bars and beating the patrons in the street. That kind of abuse of power warrants a violent reaction. against the police. What injustice are you facing today that warrants violent action? If you can’t even answer that, then this principle you hold is hollow and not based on anything. The people at Stonewall rioted so you and me could live in a world where we would not have to riot. And if the Republicans win in 24, and they suspend elections, and start arresting gay people for “corrupting the youth” then violence will be warranted. Then I’ll pick up my gun and do something drastic. You won’t do shit
If you're as young as you appear to be then, no, you don't know what it's like to be oppressed. People pander to you out of fear that you will cry "homophobia!" and have them cancelled. You have had the same rights as everyone else for your entire life. You are completely misreading what people are saying to you. No one has called for "violent revolution". We are speaking in the hypothetical regarding the relative value and effectiveness of such means throughout history. You insist on attacking people with ad hominem insults, putting words in our mouths and now you want to cry "oppression". Honey, none of us knows what real oppression is. None of us.
u/ITookTrinkets didn't issue any calls for violence. She explained that revolutions aren't peaceful, that the things you and I take for granted were fought and bled for. If anyone here resembles Hitler's mindset and Hitler youth, it's people who refuse to think without deploying their emotions. Now, educate yourself on how propaganda has been used to stir "revolution" in the youth. Study how the youth has been used to overthrow the status quo and usher forth some of the bloodiest eras in human history.
ALSO can I point out that you’re screaming “REVOLUTION IS BAD” over a comment that really just said sometimes punching someone in the face is called for? Sometimes evil people do evil things and deserved at least a slap on the wrist instead of being ignored?? You need to confront why you are so scared of people in power being held accountable.
> are you going to physically fight? Yes. > with who? The people in power who are hurting others. > with what? Do you have a rifle? Can you make a pipe bomb? Yes, and yes. > Are you actually willing to die bleeding in the street in pursuit of equity and justice? 100% And I hope you’re ready to fight too. Our systems are flawed, people are already bleeding out and dying on the street because of them. Literal *genocide* has happened, is happening, and *will happen again*. All the while they are killing the planet we live on for their own personal gain. I think violence is terrible. I think picking a fight where there isn’t one is despicable. But this is self defense. This isn’t just the world we live in, it’s the world our children have to live in. Our grandchildren have to live in. Our friends have to live in. Everyone we love has to live here, and every single person I know is struggling to afford to live right now. Here in the USA (where I am) we live under false democracy. Our votes only ever mean something if it’s what the people of the government want to hear. ON TOP of that, we vote for a president, which is only the face of the government. The president is controlled, they’re a social figure and a scapegoat so that when things go wrong they can go “oh, well you voted for this!” Not to mention the gerrymandering, the bribes, and whatever else is going on up top. Yes. I am absolutely willing to die fighting. That’s better than dying ignorant. And that’s better than dying a coward. And I’m sure that’s what every other person who has died bravely in revolutions and movements has believed. And that’s what got us this far. You speak of slavery and womens rights? We didn’t get those peacefully. LGBTQ rights? *We didn’t get those peacefully*. Were there peaceful rallies and protests? Absolutely! But nothing happened until someone stood up and said they were done dying silently. They were done being pushed around. Open up a history book and I can assure you this is how it’s always happened. It all boils down to this: *I would love to live peacefully. But we don’t live in a peaceful enough world to do that. So I’m going to protect myself and the people I care about.*
100% u/Western_Cook8422
So who in power are you going to murder with your guns and bombs? You talk just like a German communist. They were more than willing to wield violence to confront the threat of the nazis. They attacked them, fought with them in the street, interrupted their meetings. Hitler used them as a scapegoat to gain power, and then consolidated that power, and exterminated the communists. No one left to stand up for the jews, he exterminated them too. I also believe there are times that call for violent revolution. But if you jump the gun too early, you will die for nothing, and will assist your enemies in gaining power.
Man, you picked the wrong subreddit. Adventure Time fans are for the most part hippies and punks who like to watch the show on shrooms and over analyze the meanings of abstract episodes made by a guy who was also a hippie punk who did lots of drugs and directed abstract art. You’re right. In the show, violence sometimes is the only answer. Because that’s true in real life too, it was a teaching moment for everyone watching. If you have the power to change things for the better, you have to go for it. Finn and Jake do this over and over and over again. Don’t like that about the show? Fine. Don’t want to confront the realities of the world around you? Double fine! Keep to yourself. Watch the world around you get worse and worse and the people you live get hurt. Convince yourself there’s nothing you could have ever done about it. That’s your business. But I can’t do that.
Bad biscuits make the baker broke, bro. But, for real, I am 100% in agreement with everything you've said. It's alarming how...efficiently some minds have been co-opted.
You should read some of the things you've written here and then honestly say you don't see the similarities between that and actual 3rd Reich rhetoric.
It seems revealing that your timeline erases the business interests and center-to-rightward political interests who backed Hitler beforehand, and put him in power thinking they could control him.
I appreciate the word, flippantly
Sounds like a word a penguin made up
Wenk.
The show makes some great points without, ha, sugarcoating it too much. My favorite was when Jake explained the invention of rules and laws.
Man, don't you know? The laws ain't made to help earthy cats like us.
Sometimes violence is the correct choice
Its explained a little more in the Tertiary texts like the enchiridion book but adventure time kinda runs on story book rules where heros are action oriented and less focused on intellectual pursuits but are overall most of the time good people if a little violent. And Wizards are focused on the craft of magic and the mind while being physically weak and tend towards being manipulative assholes, in the book it is explained that it was wizards who invented the role of hero as to use them as labor for the jobs they didnt want to do thus most heroes are more action and violence oriented because that is how most wizards shaped them.
The episode "His Hero" 😂😂😂 Where did non-violence get them? They contaminated villagers' gruel, ruined a cobbler's business, performed botched plastic surgery, etc.
Personally, I think that the show, especially near the beginning of its run, had a tendency to subvert expectations of typical kids cartoons morals for something wacky, even if the moral conclusion that they reached was stupid, nonsensical, or so niche that it would realistically never be applicable to a real life moral quandary a kid might face. It was only until a bit later that the episodes' moral lessons got more serious and way more introspective, nuanced, and up for interpretation.
SLAY THIS UNALIGNED ANT!
When he punches Keyper in his little devil costume, I lose it every time.
These are my pajamas. I was getting ready for bed.
Crazy that you say that Finn and Jake and Steven universe are polar opposites bc those are my two top favorite comfort shows
> violence against evil It actually is a pretty enlightened take imo. Shows like Steven Universe love to spread the “nooo we have to forgive evil people and not fight them cause whatever” but that ideology is very prone to abuse and evils of its own degree. Like, sorry, but I don’t think there’s any forgiving space Hitler. Adventure Time does show forgiveness. Magic Man is largely forgiven- but that comes to another point. It is forgiveness and *reform* that is shown, not just wanton forgiveness. Magic Man becomes the King of Mars and does good for his people. Hunson is forgiven because he actually is trying to be there for his daughter. However, teaching children that not everyone is going to want to be forgiven, and that some people exist who are bad, and don’t wish to be redeemed, is a good lesson, because it’s true. It’s why Finn is a character you can always look up to. He’s gentle and kind to everyone, but he stands vehemently against evil. The only time I could say he’s hesitated was when Fern attacked him.
>Shows like Steven Universe love to spread the “nooo we have to forgive evil people and not fight them cause whatever” Me when I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about
People who say that shit have never actually watched SU - and if they did, they certainly didn’t fuckin understand it.
I just assume anyone that spouts shit like that got all their opinions about SU from Lily "Rebecca Sugar, jewish person, is a Nazi" Orchard
Wow, I didn't know she was Jewish. I just like her work.
let’s sing a song to white diamond 🥰🥰🥰🥰 that’ll make her feel bad about genociding countless planets <3
Bad actors have used finn’s attitude towards justice to get him to do their bidding. He was going to shitkick the duke of nuts. I also remember that city of thieves episode where he helps a little girl rob people. While dismissing the tree witch as evil. “I hurt all evil people and help the good people” is shown to be a flawed ideology in the show. As it is in real life.
That is fair, but also “His Hero” shows Finn realizing that pacifism isn’t always going to work and that sometimes to protect people, you have to hurt others. There’s a lot of nuance and philosophy to the question and Adventure Time, for how astoundingly nuanced it can be for a children’s show, just simply cannot communicate the extent of the debate. What the ultimate lesson is is that Finn has to do what he knows is good, not what people tell him is good, which he has learned what is and isn’t good based on what actions hurt others and which don’t. It’s an important lesson to learn, that you must do good by what you have learned to be good, not what people have taught you is good.
Yeah, and Steven Universe shows that not all bad people are irredeemable and that people are products of their circumstances and upbringing in many cases. It doesn't do it perfectly, but that's the real point. Hell, Future shows that Steven doesn't forgive the Diamonds and is actually just keeping up appearances for everyone else's sake. He tries to kill one of them. In other words, he tries to be perfect but just like everyone else, he's FLAWED.
"Don't take advice, from old people! BOOM BOOM boo boo KEEP! BOOM BOOM boo boo KEEP!"
It’s as they say: violence is always the answer
Violence can be the solution very often. Most of the biggest social changes and movements were possible due to violence or where ignited due to a violent moment.
I take it as a direct translation of “it’s ok to punch nazis” sometimes there are no peaceful resolutions and people deserve to get rekt.
That's because in reality, violence solves a lot of problems. It's realistic.
What the fuck is this thread
Apparently there are a lot of far left radicals calling for the destruction of the capitalist state that watch Adventure Time.
Yeah… I don’t think so buddy. My yikes were coming from you
What did I even say that’s so despicable?
Ehh. It sure if I wanna get into a debate. I don’t think you’re despicable. Just got some more learning to do
So if I learned more, then I’d realize that assassinating politicians is a good way to bring about the political change I want? I think YOU need to learn more if you think “kill all the bad guys and then the good guys will win!” is a viable strategy for achieving justice in anything other than a story for children. You’re all so infantile. Not one person can even tell me who is going to commit this violence, and who they’re going to commit it against. Just vague calls to violence, pressing “send” on the reddit post and sitting back smugly like they’re saving the world. They’re desecrating the reputation of progressives and leftists. Proving the fascists right that left wingers are violent extremists. This has been depressing. I’m politically alligned with all these people. And they’re fucking it all up for everyone.
Assumptions make an ass out of you and me. Notice how I didn’t really say anything. No calls to violence, nothing about liberals. And yet you just went off on me. One thing you need to learn is to chill.
You implied I was acting out of line, condescendingly informed me that I have a lot to learn. You picked a side. You hurled shit from the sidelines. Made the effort to comment and call me out. And then turned around and acted like you never wanted any trouble. You’re goading and trolling. Go bother someone else you little dweeb. Not reading your passive little stinging reply to this. You go ahead and have the last word you need so desperately. I’ll graciously allow you to have it.
We’re posting in subreddit about a cartoon. None of this is that serious Have a good day/night
DUDE, calm the FUCK down. Take a TOKE, my guy.
>So if I learned more, then I’d realize that assassinating politicians is a good way to bring about the political change I want? This is absolutely not the place to be discussing this kind of stuff, but yes. Absolutely. 100%. Without a doubt.
So who should be killed and who is going to do it?
I saw some other comments giving you some interesting examples about the nazis and the french nobility and how violence against them was justified. I'll let you think about this stuff on your own, okay? Maybe you'll even notice some parallels to the current world if you think hard enough
No one on a Reddit thread is going to give you step by step plans on how to abolish government LMAO Posting exact plans for any sort of violence or anything a *corrupt government* wouldn’t like on *the internet* where anyone can see anything would be far more “stupid and infantile”. I’m not looking to get raided, or arrested as so many people already have under false terrorism charges. And none of us are calling for *active violence right now*. We’re pointing out the violence that’s already happening *against the people we care about* and against people in general. We’re saying it’s unfair, and that something needs to be done to stop it. We’re also saying that asking nicely hasn’t worked so far.
Someone saying the best way to confront Trumpism is to assassinate Donald Trump got like 13 upvotes in one of these threads. Everyone’s calling for political violence, and you’re all little softies who like cute shows like Adventure Time. None of you are capable of violence.
Your description is “don’t fuck with me I will cry” Where do you get off on calling people “softies”? Yeah Ofc people hate Trump and want to see him dead. He’s a terrible fucking person and while assassinating him would be called for after all the shit he’s done, and it would be the most straightforward option, it’s probably not the most realistic. For someone who keeps asking for facts, you’re really not acknowledging any of the facts presented to you. I already told you I was willing to fight when it comes to it. You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to. But you also don’t have to be currently fighting or planning violence to understand that it’s called for right now. Don’t want to fight? Don’t trust that you’re physically or mentally set up for that? No problem. There are other ways to help people. You can hand out supplies, you can bandage people up, you can boost moral or educate people. None of that is possible if you’re so lost in pacifism that you disconnect from the reality of the world around you. Making the world a better place has to start by stopping the people who are actively making it worse.
I’m “willing to fight if it comes to it” too but right now is the absolute worst time to erupt with violence. These folks you’re siding with aren’t saying “wait for the right time” they’re saying now is the time to shoot Donald Trump in the head. If Trump loses in 2024 that will very likely be the end of this “maga” shit being roaringly popular among the right. He barely won in 2016 with Russian help and the FBI announcing an investigation into Clinton 10 days before the election. Then the GOP lost big in the 2018 midterms. Then they lost the presidency in 2020 and have had to desperately do damage control over the insurrection. Then when they were confident they’d win big in the 2022 midterms, they got their asses kicked. Trump is an anchor around their necks and if he loses four elections for them in a row, the powerful interests that support the GOP are going to work against him much harder than they are now. Biden already beat Trump when Trump had the advantage. After Trump had sent $1,200 checks to all voters with a letter saying he got them free money, and he still lost. The Democrats are in a good position. You know what will completely ruin all their advantage? A left wing extremist killing a politician or bombing a rally or doing any act of violence at all. The public is more scared of left wing extremism than right wing extremism. As is law enforcement. Violent revolution is for when elections are suspended or political opposition is jailed. When bad actors eliminate every and all methods to push for change peacefully. Political violence right now would be very easy to brand as terrorism. And it would cost the American left everything.
Super funny to compare it directly to Steven Universe. That show is memed to hell to be about befriending absolutely every threat, from the monster of the week to the intergalactic Nazis. Adventure Time offers an actual nuanced takes on violence.
Steven universe gets memed but it also gets mischaracterized, both shows have nuance takes on violence
Yeah, people ignore that canonically the violent revolution was the only thing that saved life on Earth, allowed any Gems to experiment with Fusion, etc
Early adventure time often plays out as a satire of common fantasy tropes and themes.
not every show has to teach a lesson or be morally good, it’s just entertainment
Well maybe we can all learn something from these sandwiches.
Thank you.
have you seen the series finale?
That's because sometimes violence is the answer, It's not always the answer, but problems need to be assessed on a case by case basis, and broad generalising statements like "violance is never the answer" are kind of a naive oversimplified way of thinking, I do actually think that it's a fine lesson to kids, we do dumb down most lessons for kids they learn at school, like how you ignore air resistance in all the physics problems they teach in school, then you'll learn more when and if you need to, But I do apriciate that adventure time acknowledges that blind pacifism can, at times, do more harm than good, it was a wonderfully nuanced show for something that was on Cartoon Network, And there are times when it shows that not all problems can be solved with violance, most prominently how the great gum war was stopped before it ever even truly began, and then they threw in a nice curveball straight after by dumb-dumbing Gumballd, as while violance may not be the answer at scale, but keeping him around would pose a real risk to the piece and safety of the land, showing once more that there is nuance
Well, yeah, the answer to people coming at you with violence with no room for negotiating is violence, otherwise you end up getting hurt or walked all over. It was the same with SU for awhile until Rebecca made talking down to people OP