Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Non-Violent Logic

Here's a video of women in India beating up a couple of rapists:


Strange how you can access some videos on YouTube but not via the "blogger" video upload system.

Oh well. Basically, I've seen a few videos of different instances where a large group of Indian women have one or two men, caught in the act of attempted rape, and are beating the men with sticks and any other objects that came to hand. Usually the men have been tied up to something, but I remember one where the man was free, but staggering, and occasionally making a pleading motion with his hands begging the women to stop.

Let's apply some of the standard "logic" of those who subscribe to the dogma of non-violence to pathological levels:

"Those women are 'discrediting' the cause they claim to be fighting for."

How does "don't rape" get "discredited"?? How does that work in practice?

"Those women are no better than the rapists they're attacking."

What a vile thing to say.

"Those women are losing the sympathy of the general public."

This is similar to the first accusation, and is generally what is meant by a cause being "discredited." The cause itself isn't discredited, but it might be in the eyes of those in the general public who haven't yet made up their minds on the issue, thereby decreasing public support for the cause. Of course, in this case, those among the general public who don't have an opinion as to whether rape is bad or not, are probably men. Which makes the statement: "Those women are losing the potential sympathy of men who don't care about rape one way or another."

To which those women would probably reply: "Who cares what they think?"

It's the same with other causes, such as homelessness, corporate human rights abuses, or Nazis. People who haven't decided where they stand on such things are either clueless, ignorant or callous. As such, they have removed themselves from the conversation or they're part of the problem.

"Those women are undermining all the work of non-violent anti-rape activists."


Once again,  I'm not asking people to go out and get their skulls cracked in fights with the cops. I'm not trying to be the Canadian Pol Pot. I'm just trying to gently nudge intellectual support away from the pathological adherence to non-violence that permeates leftist culture, because I think it is self-evidently counterproductive.


The Mound of Sound said...

Hi, Thwap. Canadian Progressives is no more. Lauralee tells me they decided to let it go. Narrows the aggregator field a bit, eh?

thwap said...


Was I on it?

I have my own reasons for non-blogging. I think about doing it but I have another project on the go and I think humanity is doomed. I wonder if that's why so many others have abandoned it.

I'm certainly not on Twitter. (I think that is dying come to think of it. I don't hear much about the latest twitter thing anymore.)

Anonymous said...

Oh, the twittah-verse is still there, my friend........
Run by the leaders of our notsofuckinfreeafterall world. If a sister or child is in MachoMan Bondage.....
notta one of us- is truly free.

enjoy your day(s), thwap.


Anonymous said...

I think I meant Selah, but whatever, you wouldn't, anyway...would you thwap?
Selective, maddtrollin' s-o-beezz......................................