Anarchy Bang: Introducing Episode Fourteen - Violence

Violence is shit distinction.
Wills will clash, whether free(d) or not.
Force applied in conflict won't be abolished.
Each decides what's commensurate force.
Some are more adept at this than others.
States (and warfare, and terrorism) isn't the only conceivable physically possible arrangement.
It's the current one.
Do you like it? How do you interact with it? Do you want to end it? How would you do it? Can you do that? Will you do that? Which of your assumptions are more accurate and which are just plain wrong?

Terrorism is theatralized force; effect relying on maximum visibility, to impact horror, demoralization, and "resonance". Covert applications of force (lethal or not) are just as spectacular, as are all the goings-on backstage to make a show possible. Spectacular is not synonym with "bad", but a specific way the will of some is asserted by selectively exhibiting and covering up, world-building and world-destroying. War, politics, the economy, the spectacle, technology, techniques, force, narratives, arguments, can all be means used to assert a will.

Which means do you like or prefer (if any)? Which do you detest (if any)? Do you have the ability to avoid using or being used by some of them?

inb4 all the violence experts and badasses show up to teach everyone. . . oh wait

Isn't consent just a subcategory of autonomy? (assertion alert, ikr?!)

So anarchy/ism doesn't "require consent" so much as it requires a decent antiauthoritarian analysis for deciding when to apply the logic of consent.

My desire is to respect everyone's autonomy until someone is clearly enjoying great advantages over others at which point, I decide to withdraw my default respect because they're demonstrating that they don't have any so...

I choose to seek consent... Or not. It's basically up to you, how interested I am in whether you "consent". Your choices inform mine. How this relates to violence should be obvious.

And Jesus was a sailor, when he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower.
And when he knew for certain, only drowning men could see him,
He said: "All men will be sailors then, until the sea shall free them."
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open,
Forsaken, almost human,
He sank beneath your wisdom, like a stone

Muhrican nihilists are soooo cool the dont need gods and yuropeen things and beleefs and they dont judge peeple from they looks like yuropeen peeple and ther cuhlture and they dont do vilent things until the get attact

violence is bad

violence is scary because it hurts people. pacifism never hurt anyone.

^^^ "mkl" ==> "mlk"

Why was that wingnut caller so angry shouting and making no sense? Did they lose friends during a mission spreading anarchism in the Niger Delta? Do they blame Little Black Cart for the violence? I don't understand.

Does there need to be an Anarchy Bang episode on testosterone?

I told ya it was the Soros-run CARTEL running the FAKE OPPOSITION for the global robber barons
Illuminati JEWS who can't help takin away our liberty and rob our guns and rape our kids. THEY KNOW the auspices of revolt can be undermine by endless po-mo talk of academia, THEY KNOW that pacifism is a useful drug along with the fluoride in Michigan lake to corrupt the youth to make them stupid and pacified with PBR, wake up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPrzkkbxFeQ&t=66s

I think the questions here about violence were misguided. Does anarchism aims at having everyone's consent, or is everyone's consent even a question? Maybe purifying those questions from contained assertions?

To me any anarchy is more of a "breaking open" than an "enforcing". Or at least a "liberating". The idea that liberating is a kind of enforcement sounds pretty crass. Kinda like saying American Black slaves were enforcing the hardships of liberation upon the "good White slave-owners", or how cops are being oppressed by street gangs. Def not where A! was getting at, but that's within the horizon of these first questions about "enforcing freedom". Anarchy is a basic condition on this planet BY DEFAULT...

I'm also wondering whether anarchism is even a thing, or if there is any consensus among all those thinking themselves as anarchists, on what this anarchism is, or what an anarchist world is supposed to be... I heard a few weirdos lately talking about anarchism as well as supporting a social-democrat party in the same sentence.

More important question that urges being asked at every show: what are we really talking about?

A little late to this but I think the word "violence" exists only in a society where civilized interactions are moralized to be passive. Do I believe in "violence" between anarchists? Well, depends on what kinda anarchist ya talkin' bout. Some social justice warrior "anarchists" consider verbal insults "violent". Many would say a knife fight between two anarchists is violence. And some say hardcore dancing at a show is an expression of violence.

I like the word "conflict". Violence is a loaded term intended to manipulate emotional response to a situation. There will always be the potential for conflict as long as there is social interactions. Conflict is neither "good" nor "bad". It just happens. I think many anarchists are not used to the idea of permanent conflict, and therefore in response try to suppress its potential for occurring through moralism.

Basically, in my opinion, conflict is the naturally occurring result of free interactions between unique individuals. I much prefer conflict than coerced peace.

Is it possible to be a nihilist and a pacfist?