You’re the one who juxtaposed the activists, MLK, and Jesus, not me. I even said you weren’t doing it in good faith. Don’t try to flip your own bullshit on me.
I never criticized anyone working hard to shed light on injustice. I have neither claims on what is “the right way” to do activism, nor accolades for my wondrous successes. I’m not whining or complaining about anyone doing actual work or trying their best to achieve actual results.
Your calls for me to prove what I never claimed ring hollow, but your silence on the proven effectiveness of your superior and enlightened methods screams loudly and reverberates far.
Almost as far as the chasm between your claim that you don’t support genocide and your actions which appear to consist entirely of chastising anyone who takes steps to fight against genocide because “they’re doing it wrong”
The only wrong way to fight fascism and genocide is not to fight at all. But you’re going even further, you fight against those who do fight. Which is to say, you fight on the side of those who are committing genocide.
Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.
Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.
Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.
Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.
You did an awful lot of arguing to demonstrate that you still didn’t really read it, and by read I mean digest it, nor fathom why I suggested you start there.
Because you are defensively pearl clutching about entirely different things than the most relevant bit to your arguments here, which is how ridiculous and harmful it is for those in a position of privilege to clutch their pearls about whether the protest actions of those being actively harmed and killed might not be convenient in their timing or execution.
And when you reach the point of recognizing why such pearl clutching is actively harmful to others, instead of reflexively insisting it’s not what you are doing, or insisting that it isn’t harmful, quite a lot of other things will fall in place.
Alright. In the fog of war, here is my entire take:
I must firmly disagree with your justification of vandalism as a legitimate form of activism. My position is grounded in fundamental moral and ethical principles, as well as historical and social analyses, which I will elaborate below.
At the core of my argument is the Kantian ethical framework, which posits that moral actions must be universally applicable and respect the dignity of all individuals. Vandalism, defined as the willful destruction or defacement of property, inherently violates this principle. It treats the property and rights of others as mere means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, which is a clear contravention of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral law is unconditional and applies to all rational agents, meaning that vandalism cannot be justified by appealing to the supposed nobility of its cause or the privilege of those who criticize it
Vandalism involves an act of destruction that disrespects the rights of property owners and the broader community. It is an illegal act that undermines social cohesion and trust, which are essential for any functioning society. The fact that vandalism is often motivated by frustration or a desire to draw attention to an issue does not absolve it of its moral wrongness. Instead, it highlights the need for more constructive and respectful forms of activism.
You suggest that criticizing vandalism is a form of “pearl-clutching” or a sign of privilege. I strongly disagree. Ethical criticism of vandalism is not about privilege or moral superiority but about upholding universal moral principles that apply to all people, regardless of their social position. Privilege does not invalidate the ethical critique of harmful actions; rather, it is the responsibility of all individuals, especially those with privilege, to critically examine their own biases and the implications of their actions.
The coin model of privilege and critical allyship emphasizes that focusing solely on the needs of privileged individuals can marginalize oppressed groups. However, this does not mean that privileged individuals cannot or should not critique harmful behaviors, including vandalism. On the contrary, it is through education, self-reflection, and dialogue that individuals can understand their privilege and work toward justice without resorting to destructive actions
A fundamental ethical principle is that the morality of an action cannot be determined solely by its ends. Vandalism, even when committed in the name of a noble cause, involves illegal and destructive means that harm individuals and communities. The psychological and social effects of vandalism include increased fear, insecurity, and erosion of trust within communities. These consequences undermine the very social fabric that activists often seek to strengthen.
Historical and contemporary evidence shows that extreme protest tactics, including vandalism, often reduce public support for movements and provoke backlash. For instance, the Just Stop Oil movement’s vandalism of artworks and historic sites has been widely criticized and has led to negative public opinion, with surveys showing only 18% support for such actions. This alienation of the public and potential allies weakens the movement’s effectiveness and undermines its goals
The history of social movements, particularly the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrates the power of nonviolent resistance. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was grounded in love, understanding, and a commitment to justice that sought to win the friendship of opponents rather than humiliate them. This approach not only achieved significant policy changes but also garnered widespread public support and moral authority. Which is wat I actually gathered from your source
Nonviolent resistance is far more effective in effecting social and political change than violent or destructive tactics. It attracts broad support, fosters trust, and builds lasting alliances. Modern activism that prioritizes shock value and media attention over constructive engagement risks alienating potential supporters and diluting the moral integrity of the cause
In closing, I want to reiterate my respect for the causes that vandalism often aims to support—such as climate justice or social equity. These are vital issues that demand attention and action. However, my disapproval of vandalism as a method is unwavering because it is wrong, harmful, and counterproductive. Vandalism undermines the moral fabric of society, alienates potential supporters, and distracts from the substantive goals of activism.
I urge a reconsideration of the justification of vandalism in favor of more constructive, morally sound, and effective forms of activism that respect human dignity and social cohesion. This is not only a matter of ethical principle but also of strategic efficacy in achieving meaningful change.
So I truly hope you are happy now given my extensive paragraph defending something that should be common sense. But alas, here it is.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Because this is plain stupid, and thank God I am not American
The activists defaced the building of a group directly contributing to the genocide. Genocide is violence, and violence can ethically be fought through violence.
Peaceful protest is a good, ethical, and proven method. So is fighting fascists and their supporters directly.
Violently fighting fascists is always good, Kant agrees too, so does MLK and Jesus.
And by the way, the French are the ones who know how to get shit done. We’ve probably started too late to stop the slide before it gets really bad over here.
Do you think Angela Davis dodges this question, or do you feel she thoroughly, satisfyingly, answers it? It’s not a long clip.
Because as best as I can tell, you will again decide that you decide how those being actively harmed should respond and what is an acceptable response from those people, and again characterize her response as advocating violence, rather than recognize how such a viewpoint does nothing but empower those who seek to oppress.
Every word she speaks is in support of her summation at the end.
Lol!
You’re the one who juxtaposed the activists, MLK, and Jesus, not me. I even said you weren’t doing it in good faith. Don’t try to flip your own bullshit on me.
I never criticized anyone working hard to shed light on injustice. I have neither claims on what is “the right way” to do activism, nor accolades for my wondrous successes. I’m not whining or complaining about anyone doing actual work or trying their best to achieve actual results.
Your calls for me to prove what I never claimed ring hollow, but your silence on the proven effectiveness of your superior and enlightened methods screams loudly and reverberates far.
Almost as far as the chasm between your claim that you don’t support genocide and your actions which appear to consist entirely of chastising anyone who takes steps to fight against genocide because “they’re doing it wrong”
The only wrong way to fight fascism and genocide is not to fight at all. But you’re going even further, you fight against those who do fight. Which is to say, you fight on the side of those who are committing genocide.
Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.
Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.
Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.
Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.
You did an awful lot of arguing to demonstrate that you still didn’t really read it, and by read I mean digest it, nor fathom why I suggested you start there.
Because you are defensively pearl clutching about entirely different things than the most relevant bit to your arguments here, which is how ridiculous and harmful it is for those in a position of privilege to clutch their pearls about whether the protest actions of those being actively harmed and killed might not be convenient in their timing or execution.
And when you reach the point of recognizing why such pearl clutching is actively harmful to others, instead of reflexively insisting it’s not what you are doing, or insisting that it isn’t harmful, quite a lot of other things will fall in place.
Good day.
Alright. In the fog of war, here is my entire take:
I must firmly disagree with your justification of vandalism as a legitimate form of activism. My position is grounded in fundamental moral and ethical principles, as well as historical and social analyses, which I will elaborate below.
At the core of my argument is the Kantian ethical framework, which posits that moral actions must be universally applicable and respect the dignity of all individuals. Vandalism, defined as the willful destruction or defacement of property, inherently violates this principle. It treats the property and rights of others as mere means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, which is a clear contravention of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral law is unconditional and applies to all rational agents, meaning that vandalism cannot be justified by appealing to the supposed nobility of its cause or the privilege of those who criticize it
Vandalism involves an act of destruction that disrespects the rights of property owners and the broader community. It is an illegal act that undermines social cohesion and trust, which are essential for any functioning society. The fact that vandalism is often motivated by frustration or a desire to draw attention to an issue does not absolve it of its moral wrongness. Instead, it highlights the need for more constructive and respectful forms of activism.
Read here for more info:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral https://iep.utm.edu/kantview https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics
You suggest that criticizing vandalism is a form of “pearl-clutching” or a sign of privilege. I strongly disagree. Ethical criticism of vandalism is not about privilege or moral superiority but about upholding universal moral principles that apply to all people, regardless of their social position. Privilege does not invalidate the ethical critique of harmful actions; rather, it is the responsibility of all individuals, especially those with privilege, to critically examine their own biases and the implications of their actions.
The coin model of privilege and critical allyship emphasizes that focusing solely on the needs of privileged individuals can marginalize oppressed groups. However, this does not mean that privileged individuals cannot or should not critique harmful behaviors, including vandalism. On the contrary, it is through education, self-reflection, and dialogue that individuals can understand their privilege and work toward justice without resorting to destructive actions
Read here for more info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373175555_Understanding_Privilege_and_Engaging_in_Activism_Elevating_Social_Justice_in_Social_Work https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9 https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/work-with-us/equality-diversity-inclusion/anti-racism-working-group/anti-racism-resources-march-2023-intersectionality-of-privilege
A fundamental ethical principle is that the morality of an action cannot be determined solely by its ends. Vandalism, even when committed in the name of a noble cause, involves illegal and destructive means that harm individuals and communities. The psychological and social effects of vandalism include increased fear, insecurity, and erosion of trust within communities. These consequences undermine the very social fabric that activists often seek to strengthen.
Historical and contemporary evidence shows that extreme protest tactics, including vandalism, often reduce public support for movements and provoke backlash. For instance, the Just Stop Oil movement’s vandalism of artworks and historic sites has been widely criticized and has led to negative public opinion, with surveys showing only 18% support for such actions. This alienation of the public and potential allies weakens the movement’s effectiveness and undermines its goals
Read here for more info: https://unherd.com/newsroom/just-stop-oils-activism-is-turning-into-blackmail/?lang=us https://impactnottingham.com/2022/10/just-stop-oil-is-vandalism-the-way-to-save-the-planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/just-stop-oil-extinction-rebellion-climate-protest https://blogs.qub.ac.uk/pb-happ/2024/04/22/are-the-just-stop-oil-protests-disruptive-or-democratic
The history of social movements, particularly the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrates the power of nonviolent resistance. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was grounded in love, understanding, and a commitment to justice that sought to win the friendship of opponents rather than humiliate them. This approach not only achieved significant policy changes but also garnered widespread public support and moral authority. Which is wat I actually gathered from your source
Nonviolent resistance is far more effective in effecting social and political change than violent or destructive tactics. It attracts broad support, fosters trust, and builds lasting alliances. Modern activism that prioritizes shock value and media attention over constructive engagement risks alienating potential supporters and diluting the moral integrity of the cause
Read here for more infor: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/civil-rights-leaders/martin-luther-king https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nonviolence https://time.com/5101740/martin-luther-king-peaceful-protests-lessons/ https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-rights-history-project/articles-and-essays/nonviolent-philosophy-and-self-defense/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change https://mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/issue/the-civil-rights-movement-in-mississippi-on-violence-and-nonviolence https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=honors https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-civil-rights-movement-1942-1968 https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism https://southern.libguides.com/civilrights/nonviolentprotest https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/nonviolent-resistance-racial-relations
In closing, I want to reiterate my respect for the causes that vandalism often aims to support—such as climate justice or social equity. These are vital issues that demand attention and action. However, my disapproval of vandalism as a method is unwavering because it is wrong, harmful, and counterproductive. Vandalism undermines the moral fabric of society, alienates potential supporters, and distracts from the substantive goals of activism.
I urge a reconsideration of the justification of vandalism in favor of more constructive, morally sound, and effective forms of activism that respect human dignity and social cohesion. This is not only a matter of ethical principle but also of strategic efficacy in achieving meaningful change.
So I truly hope you are happy now given my extensive paragraph defending something that should be common sense. But alas, here it is.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Because this is plain stupid, and thank God I am not American
The activists defaced the building of a group directly contributing to the genocide. Genocide is violence, and violence can ethically be fought through violence.
Peaceful protest is a good, ethical, and proven method. So is fighting fascists and their supporters directly.
Violently fighting fascists is always good, Kant agrees too, so does MLK and Jesus.
And by the way, the French are the ones who know how to get shit done. We’ve probably started too late to stop the slide before it gets really bad over here.
Let me try one more time.
Do you think Angela Davis dodges this question, or do you feel she thoroughly, satisfyingly, answers it? It’s not a long clip.
Because as best as I can tell, you will again decide that you decide how those being actively harmed should respond and what is an acceptable response from those people, and again characterize her response as advocating violence, rather than recognize how such a viewpoint does nothing but empower those who seek to oppress.
Every word she speaks is in support of her summation at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HnDONDvJVE