Posted on 10/18/2001 1:24:29 PM PDT by Johnny Shear
This is a copy and paste from The Democratic Underground Front Page (My comments will follow after the article)...
I know you've seen it. On a message board, in an email... it's the "argument" conservatives are supposed to use against liberals to illustrate why the use of force is necessary.
It usually goes something like this:
1. Approach student talking about 'peace' and saying there should be, 'no retaliation.'
2. Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says, "No," ask, "Why not?"
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, 'Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, 'be awful and he should not cause more violence.'
7. Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.
8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.
Typical. It betrays the conservative notion that might makes right, that if someone doesn't agree with you, you have a right to pummel him until he does. Forget reason, forget logic, just beat the hell out of them until they see the light.
The "argument" has plenty of support on the right, mostly because it is purported to teach the liberal a lesson about the real world, and allow them to beat him down at the same time. It's a conservative dream come true.
Except for one thing. What if it doesn't actually work?
After all, let's remember that this mentality is not new on the right. Bull Connor based his entire strategy on the idea that Blacks wouldn't be able to keep taking it. Surely the next dog mauling, surely the next spray of the firehose, surely the next brutalization would make them see reason. Surely the next beat down will be the last. Then they'll go away and we won't hear from them again. There was only one problem.
They didn't go away.
Connor found that he literally could not hit Blacks hard enough to keep them down. He discovered that the more brutal and vicious he became, the more determined they were to gain their rights. He discovered that, in the end, with all of the force at his disposal, with all of his dogs, fire hoses, nightsticks, guns, and lynchings, he was still powerless. He was still beaten by people with nothing but their determination and an unshakable faith in their belief.
And he discovered something else. In the end, he was the monster. He was the bad guy. He had to wake up every morning and realize that he was committing unspeakable evil on a daily basis against people who had done nothing to him. He had to recognize that he had become a petty, pathetic shell, an officer with only the shape of a man, but with no humanity to go with it.
It was a hard lesson to learn, and a high price to pay to learn it.
But some lessons must be taught over and over. And, in truth, part of the reason that the conservative "argument" is so successful is that adhering to a policy of non-violence is often very hard. It is a difficult thing not to fight back as someone takes advantage of you and hard not to sink to their level. It's a question that I personally struggle with. But I do struggle with it, because I know it’s a struggle worth waging.
To illustrate, let's take another look at the conservative "argument."
1. Conservative approaches student talking about peace and saying there should be no retaliation.
2. Conservative engages in brief conversation, asks if military force is appropriate.
3. Student says, "No." Conservative asks, "Why not?"
4. Student says something to the effect of, 'Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'
5. When student is in mid sentence, conservative punches him in the face as hard as he can.
6. Student gets back up and says, "I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."
7. Conservative punches student in the face again, harder this time.
8. Steps 6 and 7 repeat as many times as necessary.
9. Conservative finally gets it through his puny little brain that violence, indeed does not work.
10. Conservative further realizes that, in trying to coerce student through violence that he himself has become Osama bin Laden.
11. Conservative slinks away distraught, his entire worldview shattered.
That is the life-changing power that is ours for the taking. That is what can be accomplished by looking at the world through a different lens.
That, my friends, is the power of non-violence.
(Inspired by a tagline seen on the DemocraticUnderground website: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they hate you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi)
Morris Smith is editor of SurfLiberal.com
© 2001 Democratic Underground, LLC
I thought it was ABUNDENTLY clear that we all know that punching the pacifist is wrong in the "Real World". but, since this is a PARODY, the punching of the pacifist is only used to make a larger point...That we just might HAVE to use force when dealing with terrorists.
And if so, what is the point of this article? Look at their number 6 for instance.... Student gets back up and says, "I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."
Now...To me, this writer is IGNORING the fact that this is a parody based around how we should treat Bin Laden (Or, all terrorists) over what they did. But, if this writer is NOT ignoring this fact, he is actually saying that we should say to Bin Laden....."I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."
And then, to top is all off, they try and compare the abuse of Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement to WHAT? It seems to me that they are comparing them to the terorrists. And, if we go after the terrorists, that is as bad as the fools who tried to stop the Civil Rights Movement. This simply AMAZES ME!!!
Is it just me or is this writer as big of an IDIOT as is possible? I mean, I can understand some dim-wit not understanding the parody and stating it is WRONG to punch a pacifist, but I can't believe that anyone at Democratic Underground is STUPID enough to allow this to be posted to their front page.
Or, am I missing something??? Are they trying to make a larger point? A point I or any of us may not agree with, but a point none the less?
The left. What a bunch of maroons. "Got Brains?"
11. Conservative slinks away distraught, his entire worldview shattered.
12. Student is dead. Conservative may feel bad, but quickly forgets it because student no longer exists.
That's what they don't realize. Osama will keep pounding us if we do nothing. The difference is that he won't 'slink away', but will smile when he realizes he's killed us all.
They also seem to lack the ability to distinguish the difference between a bully pushing someone out of the way and a terrorist killing 5,000 innocent civilians.
But then that's what makes us love in 'DUH' viduals that much more...
ROFLOL!!!! Thanks for my "laugh of the day"!
He said no.
So don't be surprised if some of these idiots wouldn't let their wives or kids be raped.
do the democrips actually think that someone being hit actually wouldn't try to hit back? What do they think they are Ghandi now?
1. Terrorist approaches student talking about peace and saying there should be no retaliation.
2. Terrorist engages in brief conversation, asks if military force is appropriate.
3. Student says, "No." Terrorist asks, "Why not?"
4. Student says something to the effect of, 'Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'
5. When student is in mid sentence, terrorist punches him in the face as hard as he can.
6. Student gets back up and says, "I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."
7. Terrorist punches student in the face again, harder this time.
8. Steps 6 and 7 repeat as many times as necessary. 9. Terrorist finally gets it through his puny little brain that violence, indeed will not be responded to. Terrorist stops punching student and takes his money.
10. Student stands there and lets him take money.
11. Terrorist follows him home and moves into student's house. Student responds by turning up stereo.
12. Terrorist shoots student and keeps house for himself.
13. Neighbors frown disapprovingly, but there being no one who will move against him. Terrorist gets new neighbors from among the millions that don't mind what terrorist is doing to the hated enemy.
"That, my friends, is the power of non-violence". Gandhi raised an army that was responsible for killing over 4 million Indians to solidify control. His tactics only work against those who care what the civilized world thinks of them. Does anyone think that the reason that the Nazis rounded up and slaughtered the Jews was because they fought back? ...Gandhi suggested that the Jews present their throats to Hitler.
Bull Connor had to stop because, in the end, there were other people with guns who disapproved.
I can see one of the many idiots on that site posting this but they've got it on their FRONT PAGE!?????
Are they SERIOUSLY tying to compare the abuse of Civil Rights Leaders to us taking military action against Osama bin Laden?
I am looking for someone with a little better writing skills than I to confirm I am correct in thinking they've compeletly lost it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.