[impossiblefork]

Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over and a different kind of problem solving begins.

If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated. Once he's done it, he may well try again, in which case you might die. Better then to get rid of him.

[mmooss]

> Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over

You are missing the fundamentals: violence is the continuation of politics, and is resolved by politics.

> If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated.

Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior.

People have become highly indocrinated with violence as an ideology. Look at the absurdity of this comment.

[impossiblefork]

I don't really agree that it's necessarily a continuation of politics. It's an interpretation of things from Clausewitz. It's to some degree a great interpretation, explaining certain aspects of warfare, but you choose the role that your violence plays. You can make it an extension of politics, you can make it simple self-defence, purely a matter of destroying your enemies.

>Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior.

If the government or other powerful entities target you specifically, yes, you have to get rid of them.

[mmooss]

> You can make it an extension of politics, you can make it simple self-defence, purely a matter of destroying your enemies.

You still don't understand.

> If the government or other powerful entities target you specifically, yes, you have to get rid of them.

Changing the government is politics; you are just accomplishing it through other means - violence.

You are going to "get rid" of the government through violence? When has that happened? And what are the results? Politics enables people to change governments regularly, and with much better results.

My perception is that it's an ideology of violence. People just want to advocate violence - like anyone else who wants to feel like a rebel against the status quo. Maybe find something bad to upend, rather than peace. If you can choose violence, so can other people, so can the next people who don't like you - it's not a good outcome for society or for you or your descendents.

[impossiblefork]

You choose to interpret it as politics. But you can make decisions from many points of view, even a view of pure self-defence.

If somebody is engaging in pure self-defence it is a misframing to think of as political.

If you believed that it were political, then you could imagine compromises, coalitions etc. that could end it, but if it's pure self-defence then it will end when the threat is gone, and agreements etc. will be irrelevant.

[mmooss]

It's hard to follow your argument. It seems that nothing has meaning because it's all perception. I'm saying there is reality out there, and in that reality violence is politics - whether or not you see it or I see it.

[Vilian]

Even in warfare, what dictate the end of it is politics, most war stop because of that, killing yourself just because "gun go brrr" in a democratic country is stupid, and probably is going to back fire, no one normal like people shooting each other for nothing and putting innocents in risk