[balancemayvary]

You are free to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

A youtube channel by Saint Andrewism is a wonderful educational source which covers all the matters at hand in detail.

In particular, you may be interested in the history discussed in "The case against the Gu!IIotine", as well as "Nonviolence, a path to freedom?"

I'd also suggest Beau of the 5th Column; he has bite-sized five minute "Let's talk about"s which address specific current events as they develop, and add context via a short history lesson.

I'd finally point out that the State Monopoly on Violence is inherent.

I'd also point out that MLK was white-washed, and that neoliberal white culture curated the parts of his speeches what suited it.

I'd love to tell people that violence isn't the answer, but I can't do that unless I'm ready to feed them.

This quote, too, also is logical to me: Malatesta: "Violence .. is eminently corrupting." largely paraphrasing this one but it rings true to the authors original sentiment.

So, in short, you can feel lucky, because you have the privilege to take whichever side in debate you choose, and you don't have to feel the collective grief and anxiety [which comes with] being targeted for something as arbitrary as the amount of melanin in your epidermis.

[xupybd]

I think the argument isn't generally that non violence is always the only option it's that the current situation doesn't warrant violence.

I understand this is a subjective point of view as it is in response to police violence.

If things are as bad as the media suggests, that racist cops are targeting and killing black men and getting away with it then yes they system needs to be over thrown and the argument to use violence is easy to make.

But many don't believe things are that bad. I don't know as I don't live in these neighborhoods. But I think it's valuable to examine why people disagree on the issue.

[balancemayvary]

Hey, that's fine, but keep in mind:

Black people don't want to be used as a political football.

Black people accrue psychic trauma every time another news story like this breaks. It's communal mourning.

Being able to "examine the issue" without being at this disadvantage is a privilege.

https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard...

We are all affected, but some much more harshly than others.

[professoretc]

> Black people accrue psychic trauma every time another news story like this breaks. > Being able to "examine the issue" without being at this disadvantage is a privilege.

Whenever I read something like this, the cynic in me wants to reply, "If <insert group> are really that psychologically fragile, clearly they're not ready to participate fully in a liberal democratic society, which necessarily requires being to separate oneself and one's emotions from the issues being discussed."

[pleomonnt]

As a matter of fact, every <insert group> is really that psychologically fragile. No more so than a certain <insert group> that is too "psychologically fragile" to handle the terrible burden of having a really well paid, cushy, slack-happy desk job with great benefits and WFH freedom, without a new article about burnout reaching the HN front page every week.

As for "being to separate oneself and one's emotions from the issues being discussed"...

- That would disqualify effectively much every participant in a modern liberal democracy, rendering it a non-democracy.

- That doesn't make much sense to begin with, as the impact of issues and policy on "oneself and one's emotions" is the fundamental measure of good/bad even if you're a robotic utilitarian.