Morrissey's message of (non)violence

[MILVA]

That's where it gets very, very problematic.

Well, no doubt. But then, I don't think it's easy. And I don't want to dance around the problem or ignore it (some people used (?) to say that in order to solve the violence in our societies you just had to read another newspaper...), yet a utopian construction where there is no violence at all doesn't seem to me to be realistic, nor completely desirable.

And that doesn't mean there should be violence - but at least that removing it altogether might come at a great cost (and violence). And it could be like a virus: removing it completely makes us all weaker to newer threats.

The same holds for the veganist "totalitarianism": I personally don't eat animals or animal products (or at least not knowingly), but I can't impose that on someone else. I will explain my motivations, and point out obvious problems related to "meat eating" - but I don't dream of a society in which no one eats meat. It seems rather unrealistic.

The moral highground is probably a nice place to be - but in the end, one has to sink down to the level where practical compromises have to be made. And I believe the interest of it all lies in there.

I have no interest in uniform(ed) societies...

 

[Anaesthesine]

Well, no doubt. But then, I don't think it's easy. And I don't want to dance around the problem or ignore it (some people used (?) to say that in order to solve the violence in our societies you just had to read another newspaper...), yet a utopian construction where there is no violence at all doesn't seem to me to be realistic, nor completely desirable.

No, it's not easy. But my experience with such things tells me that violence simply leads to more violence, especially when the violence is committed in the name of social justice. There are some cases where it's a dead-end - the Black Panthers found that out. They started out with (mostly) laudable goals, but by the time they began setting things on fire the higher ground was lost, and so was the argument. It is a heartbreaker.

When it comes to countering the purely financial benefits arising from exploitation and injustice, anything that disrupts the revenue stream can be pretty effective.

And that doesn't mean there should be violence - but at least that removing it altogether might come at a great cost (and violence). And it could be like a virus: removing it completely makes us all weaker to newer threats.

Yes, we can never erase violence from any society, but it's a laudable goal to aim for. I like your metaphor - once a body loses its ability to fight, it is open to aggressive invaders. For this reason, being a pacifist should entail an intimate knowledge of the mechanics and philosophy of violence.

The same holds for the veganist "totalitarianism": I personally don't eat animals or animal products (or at least not knowingly), but I can't impose that on someone else. I will explain my motivations, and point out obvious problems related to "meat eating" - but I don't dream of a society in which no one eats meat. It seems rather unrealistic.

Of course, the vegetarian/vegan choice can never be enforced or coerced; if it doesn't come from within, it fails. This is why violence will never win this particular argument, but persuasion often will. I'm so sympathetic to what I perceive as Morrissey's particular plight in this regard - the eating of animals is a tragedy to those who perceive it as the ultimate act of inhumanity; the willful slaughter of the weakest amongst us. Ethical vegetarianism is not like an argument for being a locavore, which makes so much economic and social sense. Vegetarianism and veganism is a much more emotional, spiritual matter (although the environmental arguments are also very, very compelling). It's also a philosophical stance against exploitation and violence that only peaceful means can achieve.

Morrissey did everything humanly possible; he fought the good fight and he won so many little battles, but the war may well be lost. Most of us can only dream of having such influence, and can only imagine what frustration comes in its wake.

The moral highground is probably a nice place to be - but in the end, one has to sink down to the level where practical compromises have to be made. And I believe the interest of it all lies in there.

I have no interest in uniform(ed) societies...

I'm always grateful to those who argue for nonviolence, and practice it. Thank goodness for the Jains - they are necessary. For the rest of us, life is one big compromise, and those of us who are mindful struggle with this every day.

As for uniform(ed) societies: a lack of violence doesn't necessarily lead to matching hats and footwear - one of the most violent societies was also one of the best-dressed.

 

[MILVA]

No, it's not easy. But my experience with such things tells me that violence simply leads to more violence, especially when the violence is committed in the name of social justice. There are some cases where it's a dead-end - the Black Panthers found that out. They started out with (mostly) laudable goals, but by the time they began setting things on fire the higher ground was lost, and so was the argument. It is a heartbreaker.

When it comes to countering the purely financial benefits arising from exploitation and injustice, anything that disrupts the revenue stream can be pretty effective.



Yes, we can never erase violence from any society, but it's a laudable goal to aim for. I like your metaphor - once a body loses its ability to fight, it is open to aggressive invaders. For this reason, being a pacifist should entail an intimate knowledge of the mechanics and philosophy of violence.



Of course, the vegetarian/vegan choice can never be enforced or coerced; if it doesn't come from within, it fails. This is why violence will never win this particular argument, but persuasion often will. I'm so sympathetic to what I perceive as Morrissey's particular plight in this regard - the eating of animals is a tragedy to those who perceive it as the ultimate act of inhumanity; the willful slaughter of the weakest amongst us. Ethical vegetarianism is not like an argument for being a locavore, which makes so much economic and social sense. Vegetarianism and veganism is a much more emotional, spiritual matter (although the environmental arguments are also very, very compelling). It's also a philosophical stance against exploitation and violence that only peaceful means can achieve.

Morrissey did everything humanly possible; he fought the good fight and he won so many little battles, but the war may well be lost. Most of us can only dream of having such influence, and can only imagine what frustration comes in its wake.



I'm always grateful to those who argue for nonviolence, and practice it. Thank goodness for the Jains - they are necessary. For the rest of us, life is one big compromise, and those of us who are mindful struggle with this every day.

As for uniform(ed) societies: a lack of violence doesn't necessarily lead to matching hats and footwear - one of the most violent societies was also one of the best-dressed.

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society that knows how to be violent when it is really required, and practices it with restraint and compassion.

I used to work in a hospital that didn't want to employ security staff - physical assaults by drunk patients and drug addicts were almost a daily matter, especially in the weekends. There's no time and no room for reasoning in such cases - and having to assess a violent, drunk patient with a potentially serious head injury is not what you want to do - but you have to.

 

[Barking]

This is a very wonderful observation.

Pardon?
here's the violent veracity of "lurv":

“Love feels no burden, thinks nothing of trouble, attempts what is above its strength, pleads no excuse of impossibility; for it thinks all things lawful for itself, and all things possible.”

It's not really got anything to do with singing about Estonia, then
Can't believe our Goinghome fell for that!

 

[Paulc]

thought provoking thread

if i had money
i would buy a submarine
and torpedo whaling boats

 

[murder and desire]

No, it's not easy. But my experience with such things tells me that violence simply leads to more violence, especially when the violence is committed in the name of social justice. There are some cases where it's a dead-end - the Black Panthers found that out. They started out with (mostly) laudable goals, but by the time they began setting things on fire the higher ground was lost, and so was the argument. It is a heartbreaker.

When it comes to countering the purely financial benefits arising from exploitation and injustice, anything that disrupts the revenue stream can be pretty effective.



Yes, we can never erase violence from any society, but it's a laudable goal to aim for. I like your metaphor - once a body loses its ability to fight, it is open to aggressive invaders. For this reason, being a pacifist should entail an intimate knowledge of the mechanics and philosophy of violence.



Of course, the vegetarian/vegan choice can never be enforced or coerced; if it doesn't come from within, it fails. This is why violence will never win this particular argument, but persuasion often will. I'm so sympathetic to what I perceive as Morrissey's particular plight in this regard - the eating of animals is a tragedy to those who perceive it as the ultimate act of inhumanity; the willful slaughter of the weakest amongst us. Ethical vegetarianism is not like an argument for being a locavore, which makes so much economic and social sense. Vegetarianism and veganism is a much more emotional, spiritual matter (although the environmental arguments are also very, very compelling). It's also a philosophical stance against exploitation and violence that only peaceful means can achieve.

Morrissey did everything humanly possible; he fought the good fight and he won so many little battles, but the war may well be lost. Most of us can only dream of having such influence, and can only imagine what frustration comes in its wake.



I'm always grateful to those who argue for nonviolence, and practice it. Thank goodness for the Jains - they are necessary. For the rest of us, life is one big compromise, and those of us who are mindful struggle with this every day.

As for uniform(ed) societies: a lack of violence doesn't necessarily lead to matching hats and footwear - one of the most violent societies was also one of the best-dressed.

I would just like to say a lovely post. Some thought comments made.
Thank you