I'm just as excited to hear that as I am your genius proposal for cutting back on fossil fuel emissions by ramping up coal production

@aeva Being a total pacifist makes perfect sense if you are in a position to ensure that nobody ever uses violence — and for that, you have to be a literal god. If you aren’t a literal god, you will quickly run into the paradox of tolerance.

@aeva I really sympathize with pacifism, but unfortunately I don’t think it’s realistic a lot of the time. I do want society to become less violent, which is only possible if there is no state (aka attempted monopoly of violence) or other hierarchies. And I think some violence in self defense will always be necessary because most hierarchies can’t be dismantled without it, and assholes will always try to gain power over others (often through violence), in which case knowing how to defend yourself is necessary. I think violence should always be a last resort. I think this is a big contradiction within anarchism, or at least the version of anarchism I personally would call my politics, if I want there to be less violence and the means have to align with the ends or else you’re never going to get anywhere near those ends, shouldn’t the way towards the world I want not involve violence? But this is not realistic. Some people resolve this dilemma by saying that actually they are not against violence at all, which I personally don’t like because I do hate violence, while others become full pacifists and render their actions ineffective (of course there are effective things you can do that don’t involve violence but those usually need solidarity with others who do use violence to be effective). I think a better way to resolve it is to not treat all violence as the same but to categorize it into punching up and punching down. Punching up is a kind of self defense, in the way that punching nazis is always self defense because they by definition are a threat to everyone. Fighting against any kind of hierarchy is punching up, and a kind of self defense because hierarchies are always backed up in some way by violence. Punching down is that violence that keeps up hierarchies, wether it’s something as big and organized as the violence of the state or it’s just some rando who wants to feel powerful or sth and so attacks marginalized people, or an abuser, who inflicts mental or physical violence on their partner. This is the violence that should always be fought. Of course there is always violence that can’t neatly be sorted into these categories, and I don’t know what I think about those kinds of violence, guess it’s kind of a case-by-case thing. I’d wager a lot of those are also a result of hierarchies tho.

@aeva like in very very specific circumstances (maybe self defence) it *might* be needed but there is literally no real reason for violence and I mean the reasons people decide to deal with something with violence are beyond stupid

@muvlon @aeva