leftoid:

Like u can’t properly claim nonviolence and support a standing army or a police force. Like supporting or respecting dudes with guns, batons and handcuffs walking around yr neighborhood is not, and will never ever be nonviolent, fundamentally.

If you think the police or the military of a modern nation-state have any legitimacy in their current form, that’s legitimacy granted to political violence, plain and simple.

Like if yre not for the abolition of modern police and prisons, you’ve got no leg to stand on saying you don’t believe in violence, bc violence is the only way yre gonna get ppl in cages, y’know? It’s the only way to maintain Law & Order.

I mean really if you wanted to extend it I think a legitimate case could b made that support of or nationalistic and/or patriotic support of imperial powers goes against nonviolent principles. If u look at how America, for instance, or Britain, operates there’s not much that’s really peaceful abt it, is there?

Like I guess this here, the aforementioned is my biggest pet peeve w/ nonviolence as popularly defined and applied bc like, it’s so transparent, when you look past the surface of the argument, or it is for me anyways.

I guess that’s why I wanna start differentiating btween nonresistance and nonviolence, like I think that’s a verbal distinction that’s got some meaning and use, even if folks think it’s petty.