morally and ethically, it is viable when failing to be violent results in harm to you and yours.
From an amoral and pragmatic perspective, when it gets you what you want or need, and the benefit exceeds the negative consequences.
When nazis
(Because fuck imgur)
It literally never gets old
Or any kind of anti-democratic authoterian forces
Direct action can be surprisingly effective.
When you’re being attacked and can’t escape or someone else is who can’t defend themselves.
Agreed
When nonviolence will result in more suffering
Absolutely
when it’s the last resort to self defense. at that point, it’s not only the only viable solution, but the morally obligated one.
Don’t start fights, but finish them.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
It’s quite often a viable solution. It’s rarely an ethical one.
Thats the trouble with it lol
Viable almost all the time. It’s rarely ethical and usually not very effective so it should not be your first resort, and probably not second either.
Fair
As a response to violence or a legitimate threat of future violence. Someone running away indicates they are not a threat of future violence unless they are giving obvious signs or verbalizing that they intend further violence.
Being a nazi or other hate group that actively promotes initiating violence counts as a legitimate threat of future violence even if they wrap it up in false propaganda that implies they are in danger. Groups that plan on responding to violence with violence as a defensive measure do not.
When justice fade away
now
Yeah?
