Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Violence Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?

[Gregory Thompson]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It looks like violence can come from either group. No need to make a competition about which is more likely.

 

[o_mlly]

Correct that the argument is basically the same, but..... you have the implication backwards.

Using the softer word "force" is just a tactic to subtly shield oneself from the full implications of justified violence.

You may wrongly infer that but I assure you that was not implied. (The listener infers, the speaker implies.)

 

[durangodawood]

It looks like violence can come from either group. No need to make a competition about which is more likely.

For sure both "sides" have demonstrated a capacity for deadly violence recently. But if there are some important differences among the various political cultures of the times, its important to know what they are.

I'm less interested in what the ultra extreme fraction of a percent of each side are up to, and more interested in what the farthest 25% or so think. Thats where actual change, often for the worse, can germinate.

The former is a law enforcement problem. The latter could be the fate of the republic.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

? While you recognize that the use of force can be moral but wish to call such force justified violence really doesn't make a difference to anyone's argument except to those who prefer economy and clarity in their use of words.

Newton? I haven't read all his works on the laws of nature but I would not think he ever used "violence" in his descriptions. Nature is not a moral agent.

No dictionary (that I assume tracks the general use) says that violence is the immoral use of force. You are the one using the non-standard definition (compared to it's general use). When talking to the general public why don't use justified violence instead of force as that is how most would use and understand the word violence. I hope that you know how force is used in newtonian mechanics and is only being facetious, if not it doesn't really matter. I'm just questioning why you use force instead of justified violence which you and I and seemingly everyone else understands, instead of your narrow technical definition? Is it even used commonly in academic writing (true question, it would help me to know when I read the articles).

 

[childeye 2]

^ Those groups.

You mean the deceived people?

 

[Palmfever]

The 'wrong' groups in both parties.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Well, we are certainly experiencing a tyrannical government, with tyranny escalating every day. We have National Guard troops invading cities whose crime rates have already experienced rapid downturns, disrupting businesses and creating anger and fear. We have ICE racially profiling citizens, roving about cities masked and unidentified, driving terrified people into hiding and traumatizing children. We have attacks on media--lawsuits, firings, bribes to law firms to prevent them from taking up human rights cases.
So my question is this: When are the 2nd Amendment supporters going to recognize that our government is becoming a tyranny--and going to the ballot box to stop it?

Kinda makes you appreciate the second amendment...eh?

 

[DaisyDay]

I think we only need to look at recent events to understand that.

As long as we look very selectively.

If Charlie Kirk was black or left wing, there would have been riots, looting, disorder and burning cities.

If he were what he wasn't, then the boogeymen "they" would do horrible things.

If the girl on the bus was black and murdered by a white man, surrounded by white people not caring and taking a photo of the dying girl, as the white man walked off saying "I got the black girl", there would have been riots, looting, disorder and burning cities.

If what happened had happened differently than how it did happen, and the races were switched, then then the boogeymen "they" would do horrible things. Buses and trains are the same thing, categorically speaking.

Not only is the right less likely to do these things, but we aren't becoming unhinged when they happen to us.

Somehow black means left and white means right? I'm not sure why Iryna Zarutska is "right' being Ukrainian, not Russian, but her being white makes her right, eh?

Charlie Kirk's assassination kinda sums it up and I think that's why it's so shocking to many. As much as people may have disagreed with him, he showed up and the microphone was there to debate and disagree. But many on the left aren't interested in dialogue, they want a monologue, and you agree with it or else.

If so many on the left aren't interested in dialogue, then who exactly was Kirk debating with? It now seems that since Kirk was tragically silenced, a certain faction of the right is determined to silence everyone else.

 

[Pommer]

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are male, and males suffer the most under woke ideology, so they just want relief from their misery, so some of them go killing those who are causing them suffering. They aren’t looking for combat, they are looking for relief.

What choice do they have, really?
Why staunchly hold onto guns if they’re committed to never using them?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You mean the deceived people?

See also post 64

 

[o_mlly]

No dictionary (that I assume tracks the general use) says that violence is the immoral use of force.

violence ​

noun​

1 the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy ​

Definition of VIOLENCE

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; an instance of violent treatment or procedure; injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

​

Is it ever moral for one to use physical force with an intention to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy another? I think not.

What sense would this thread make it the title were: "Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Force Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?" Not much.

I now think you are being merely argumentative. Definition of ARGUMENTATIVE

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

This is a very detailed set of poll results. Note the sectioned where we see which groups are most likely to support violence to get their political aims.

Majorities would never accept violence as a political strategy. Who is shocked that liberals are much MORE likely to condone violence? Those who are "very liberal" are at about 25% as are 18-44 year old liberals. The more liberal, the more accepting of violence. I certainly would have expected the opposite, but then I just watched documentary for an hour that focused on Mandela.

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

After reading that "87% of Americans believe political violence is not acceptable," I'm encouraged that support for democracy and the rule of law remains strong.

Instead of emphasizing the positive qualities shared by most Americans, this discussion centers on the 5% who believe political violence is acceptable, primarily as a means to criticize political opponents.

Perhaps this is a fundamental issue in our political landscape. Instead of emphasizing positive developments, there is a tendency to vilify opposing perspectives. We often concentrate on the views of a small minority of Americans, rather than recognizing the overwhelming majority—87%—who find common ground, even amid a divisive political environment.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

violence ​

noun​

1 the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy ​

Definition of VIOLENCE

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; an instance of violent treatment or procedure; injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

​

Is it ever moral for one to use physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy another? I think not.

What sense would this thread make it the title were: "Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Force Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?" Not much.

I now think you are being merely argumentative. Definition of ARGUMENTATIVE

Are you missing the fact that I'm not the only one that found your use puzzling? What about when the military uses force to damage or destroy military targets (you added another)? I hear people say things like "the violence of the crash was horrific" or "the police had to use violence to subdue the suspect" or "the violence of hurricane Katrina was terrifying" all the time, neither of of which are necessary moral or immoral.

I actually don't feel that changes the question at all. If one believes violence is sometimes necessary to gain political aims, they believe the violence is justified which apparently means the same thing as force. I don't carry your connotations around the words force and violence.

You can use it in your way in this discussion, but don't be surprised if not everybody uses it that way. Especially as that seems to be in the particular circumstances of academic writing.

Here's the complete entry from the dictionary you linked.

violence​

noun​

vi·o·lence ˈvī-lən(t)s
ˈvī-ə-

Synonyms of violence
1
a
: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b
: an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3
a
: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
the violence of the storm

b
: vehement feeling or expression : fervor
also : an instance of such action or feeling
c
: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Definition of VIOLENCE

Here is another use of the word in a context that would not seem to assume that the use of violence is automatically immoral.

"Stand Your Ground and Expanded Castle Doctrine (SYG) laws are part of the broader doctrine of self-defense in US criminal law. They excuse the use of deadly force in self-defense under some circumstances, even when the actor could have safely chosen retreat over violence."

Civilian Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense: Public Health, Stand Your Ground - PMC

 

[o_mlly]

Why staunchly hold onto guns if they’re committed to never using them?

I'm a gun owner. I'm committed to not using my weapon unjustly.

 

[Fantine]

It's impossible to do this without leaving a cyber trail today.
A rhetorical.questuon: Do.they think we are stupid?
Let's prove them wrong.

 

[childeye 2]

See also post 64

mark46 said:
There was violence on both sides. There were those who instigated violence on both sides.

In the carnal minded battle this articulation of both "sides" above occurs. But in the spiritual minded battle it's about persevering in Love, even to love one's enemies. So there exists an alternative way to frame "sides".

See this dichotomy --> Left/Right <-- In this dichotomy the spiritually minded side sees that the carnal minded side working the ends against the middle, and the spiritual minded side is trying to work the ends towards the middle. I find that to be a spiritually minded articulation of "sides".

 

[Yarddog]

This is a very detailed set of poll results. Note the sectioned where we see which groups are most likely to support violence to get their political aims.

Majorities would never accept violence as a political strategy. Who is shocked that liberals are much MORE likely to condone violence? Those who are "very liberal" are at about 25% as are 18-44 year old liberals. The more liberal, the more accepting of violence. I certainly would have expected the opposite, but then I just watched documentary for an hour that focused on Mandela.

What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov

Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.

today.yougov.com

Who is shocked when the poll says results vary depending on who has suffered from political violence. Republican feelings are triggered, right now, because of Charlie Kirk's horrible murder. They were compl early different when the Democrats were killed.