Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
I'd remind you when most people say they support "non-violence", in this culture, they're lying. What most people consider as violence is only that which falls outside the intersection of officially sanctioned violence & popularly supported violence.
|
So you think governments in democracies sanction violence on their own population?
Quote:
|
Calling the police on someone is an act of violence, incarcerating someone is an act of violence, and taxation is an act of violence. What differentiates these from smacking girls is the level of popularity of each & the lack or presence of official sanctioning.
|
With reasoning like this, I'm lost for words......How does somebody even try an get inside that brain of yours, give it a good shake and hopefully start to find some level ground with you. You actually sound like one of these fanatical redundant Trotskyists that were common here at student gatherings in the 1970s and 1980s, but of course you couldn't be, you're about as far right as they were left.
Quote:
|
Hierarchy is based on inequality of power and the greater the hierarchy, the greater the inequality. In other words, hierarchy is based on violence & the threat of violence.
|
Something that makes a bit more sense. But of course it depends on what type of political hierarchy you're talking about.
Quote:
|
Now, yes, there is a dialectic between compassion & terror in such hierarchys; however, what you're ignoring is that the compassion was community specific, and that the notion of compassion for everyone the world over is entirelly new and rooted in Christian superstition.
|
Unless your're willing to explain this dialectic in more detail, what you've written above is complete gibberish.