@CrimethInc

Really a good question.

@CrimethInc

It's not about "violence good" versus "violence bad", but "what is your violence in service of?"
[...] violence is often justified. [...] people rarely earn their freedom without getting a little bit rowdy. It's about who gets to wield violence, and to what end? Is your violence about consolidating power, or distributing it? Is it possessive, or protective? Does it enforce a vertical power structure, or a lateral one?

ーIan Danskin, "Bringing Back What's Stolen: The Avenging Feminine" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdyRku0k-PI

@CrimethInc

Some good advice from the Hong Kong protestors; Do Not Split.

Meaning don't waste time and energy trying to police the methods of resistance of those on your side. There will always be disagreements on methods and strategies, but at this stage it's most important that everyone resist in whatever way they can, to the degree that they're comfortable.

@CrimethInc

let's go interrupt some oppression!

@CrimethInc : This is the critical question in general. The 20th century was full of attempts by famous men to find the perfect algorithm to organize society into a utopia. Nonviolence, just like socialism, communism, syndicalism and even anarchism is full of good ideas but is just another theoretical ideal algorithm.

However, no real movement can impose an algorithm on society without cohesion. Our strength is our freedom, soliderity and diversity.

These ideal systems are interesting thought experiments but are much less relevant than the question of what we do right now to fight oppression and make the world a better place. Instead of complying with an ideology, let's focus on whether an action helps or hinders kindness and freedom.

My ideology these days basically comes down to "don't be a dick and make the world less dickish."