Luigi Mangione, who is charged with first-degree murder in the ambush killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, made the comments on a website set up by his defense.
A passably substantive argument! Though you couldn’t resist a patronizing note of condescension right at the end. To me that suggests insecurity and so undermines your point.
I do know history, more or less (in fact I have a degree in it). And I take different lessons from it than you. The French revolution had two phases, non-violent and violent. Almost all of the useful reforms happened in the first phase. The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
As for civil rights, to me that’s even clearer: it was not violence but non-violence - boycotts, sit-ins, marches - that won over public opinion and so made it impossible for the Kennedy-Johnson government to continue doing nothing.
I think MLK would have been horrified to see the rhetoric you deploy to defend the indefensible. I certainly am.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.
Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.
Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.
This is written word, it’s incomplete, it’s flawed. Please do not assume the worst. I am responding in good faith to you here : I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies, that it historically has, and that it may again -even if we don’t like it
You are extremely dishonest in interpreting the message from the one user who is excercising way too much patience with you.
You should wash your mouth when you speak about MLK when spouting for your moralism.
Also, unfriendly tip: if you’re gonna critizice people for being condescending to you, you shouldn’t start your argument being condescending towards everyone a priori.
Finally, you have no moral high ground, your “non violence” apparently only applies to popular opinion and not state or politicians actions. Also, citing the French revolution as an example is woefully reductive and shows that maybe you should dust off your degree and read just a bit more.
MLK was one of the 20th century’s three best known proponents of non-violence as a political method, along with Gandhi and Mandela. All three were hugely successful in achieving their aims.
About condescension, I’m trying but it’s a difficult trick to pull off. Dishonesty is a more serious accusation that you would need to back up.
The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
Okay you gotta be kidding me. Can you give me the names of those countries? Because the examples that come to mind (Britain, Germany, the Netherlands) were very much violent.
The guillotine alone killed 17,000 people during the French Revolution. Clearly there is no comparison with what happened in the countries you mention.
The actual reforms brought by the French revolution happened mostly during the nonviolent part before the Terror. Comparable reforms in the UK for example happened throughout the 18th and 19th century with hardly any violence.
The actual reforms brought by the French revolution happened mostly during the nonviolent part before the Terror.
The nonviolent part that had people checks notes storming the Bastille? That aside the actual revolution part of the French revolution ended up mostly nonviolent because the Ancien Regime capitulated nonviolently; had they dug in their heels the whole thing would’ve been a lot more violent.
Comparable reforms in the UK for example happened throughout the 18th and 19th century with hardly any violence.
Okay but those reforms happened after the royalists were beaten into submission. The English Civil War and other events happened in the 17th century and were the basis of later democratic reforms in Britain. They were nonviolent because the prerequisite violence necessary to keep reactionary royalist forces from messing everything up had already happened.
A passably substantive argument! Though you couldn’t resist a patronizing note of condescension right at the end. To me that suggests insecurity and so undermines your point.
I do know history, more or less (in fact I have a degree in it). And I take different lessons from it than you. The French revolution had two phases, non-violent and violent. Almost all of the useful reforms happened in the first phase. The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
As for civil rights, to me that’s even clearer: it was not violence but non-violence - boycotts, sit-ins, marches - that won over public opinion and so made it impossible for the Kennedy-Johnson government to continue doing nothing.
I think MLK would have been horrified to see the rhetoric you deploy to defend the indefensible. I certainly am.
MLK would absolutely disagree with you.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.
Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.
Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands
“Direct action”, yes. Murder: no.
what do you think “Direct action” means?
As mentioned: protests, marches, sit-ins, strikes, there are plenty of forms of direct action. Direct action is not the same thing as violence.
This is written word, it’s incomplete, it’s flawed. Please do not assume the worst. I am responding in good faith to you here : I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies, that it historically has, and that it may again -even if we don’t like it
I do assume good faith. But can you see the problem with saying, “I’m hoping that everyone eventually sees that they’re wrong and I’m right”?
On its face I agree. But I think it plays a pernicious role and personally I don’t want anything to do with it.
You are extremely dishonest in interpreting the message from the one user who is excercising way too much patience with you. You should wash your mouth when you speak about MLK when spouting for your moralism.
Also, unfriendly tip: if you’re gonna critizice people for being condescending to you, you shouldn’t start your argument being condescending towards everyone a priori.
Finally, you have no moral high ground, your “non violence” apparently only applies to popular opinion and not state or politicians actions. Also, citing the French revolution as an example is woefully reductive and shows that maybe you should dust off your degree and read just a bit more.
MLK was one of the 20th century’s three best known proponents of non-violence as a political method, along with Gandhi and Mandela. All three were hugely successful in achieving their aims.
About condescension, I’m trying but it’s a difficult trick to pull off. Dishonesty is a more serious accusation that you would need to back up.
Okay you gotta be kidding me. Can you give me the names of those countries? Because the examples that come to mind (Britain, Germany, the Netherlands) were very much violent.
The guillotine alone killed 17,000 people during the French Revolution. Clearly there is no comparison with what happened in the countries you mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
You’ve got a civil war for Britain, a war of independence for the Netherlands and a foreign occupation after a bloody war for Germany.
The actual reforms brought by the French revolution happened mostly during the nonviolent part before the Terror. Comparable reforms in the UK for example happened throughout the 18th and 19th century with hardly any violence.
The nonviolent part that had people checks notes storming the Bastille? That aside the actual revolution part of the French revolution ended up mostly nonviolent because the Ancien Regime capitulated nonviolently; had they dug in their heels the whole thing would’ve been a lot more violent.
Okay but those reforms happened after the royalists were beaten into submission. The English Civil War and other events happened in the 17th century and were the basis of later democratic reforms in Britain. They were nonviolent because the prerequisite violence necessary to keep reactionary royalist forces from messing everything up had already happened.