221–230 of 433 posts
Yes, violence shouldn't be the first resort, and when violence is unleashed innocent suffer as well, but there is a great difference between choosing not to use violence due to whatever consideration, and being so toothless and tamed that a sight of dog that finally bites when being constantly beaten sickens you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> French Revolution was pretty peaceful The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023
This is called cherry picking. The comment refers to an article specifically discussing only one aspect of a major historical event. The French revolution is considered one of the most important events in the history of Europe, because of the great impact it had on the (among others) politics, economy and the quality of life of common people. Downplaying its importance by trying to water its impact down to "but rich…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> suggestions for a real peaceful approach to get rid of the French royalty? What the British did. Tale of Two Cities. Land and electoral reform. One of them stayed geopolitically relevant for another century. One of them became Germany’s sock puppet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I_of_Engl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> French Revolution was pretty peaceful The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023
The elites that survived ended up better off. 50,000 other elites were killed during the French Revolution. By the same token, the normal populace was also way better off after the French Revolution, since using the money and wealth of the dead elites to improve everyone's lives made a substantial impact on the French civilization that they are still benefiting from today. In other words...the French Revolution is ex…
Ish. Most survived. And they didn’t have jets. Revolutions today are broadly accretive for elites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> French Revolution was pretty peaceful The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1]. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023
And yet feudalism was abolished, and the map of Europe remade.
Mostly by conquest. Not revolution, certainly not the popular kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti? Keep pushing your state investigators. Work to flip the House. And keep protesting and disrupting the browncoats. Alex Pretti did more to stop ICE than anyone e.g. killing an individual ICE agent would do.
I am a resident of the Twin Cities and I agree wholeheartedly with this perspective. I found reading the book Waging A Good War very educational about the deliberate, strategic use of nonviolence by the American Civil Rights Movement and its ultimate triumph as a means to win support and achieve social change. It was a clear and inspiring parallel for me during the worst times of this year so far.
I don't know if they are right, neither in world view nor conclusion. But it seems this is the world we currently lived in. This is one of the cases where for once i wish there was a manifesto to read, because i badly want to understand why
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've basically just said anyone who doesn't hold the "approved" opinion is wrong and then you called them names. But you wrapped it in extra words so that it's less flagrant. Did you ever think that maybe people do in fact believe what they say they believe?
Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong. I don't see myself as having called anyone names; rather, I said that the point was so banal that the only conversation you're likely to see is from people who get dopamine hits from taking the edgy other side of the argument.
Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?
But I digress. Firebombing Sam Altman is very bad; there is a multitude of good points against it, from the moral to the pragmatic. "Violence is fundamentally evil" is just a lazy and evidently false argument that does you a disservice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people might have missed it last thread, here's dang's response to the discourse: > I don't think I've ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they "don't condone violence" and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this communit…
I recently saw a lecture by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky [1] which discussed the complexities of human violence. We both condone and don't condone violence all the time, depending on social context. And furthers, our ways of expressing violence are varied (even down to tiny things like the silent treatment). We (along with other animals) have always used aggression to enforce social order and obtain social benefit.…
I feel like Altman's PR team is dropping the ball. We somehow need to get the word out that AI tools will benefit all of humanity, not detract from it.