Days Gone Opencritic 72 Metacritic 72

[forevercloud3000]

thismeintiel said:

MrWayne said:

Have you watched the video or only looked at the thumbnail? I disagree with Destiny's views on political violence but he makes good points for his stance, maybe you would agree with him.

I watched the first few minutes where he starts talking about it being justified for certain situations, and what those situations are, and stopped. Of course, those situations are always made up and/or exaggerated by Dems, with people on the Left buying it wholesale. So, no, I will never agree that political violence is acceptable. It just shows you have no argument that can sway the public enough to vote the way you want, so you try to beat or threaten the vote out of them. 

It just amazes me how these little anti-fascists are actually fascists themselves. And because they have no self-reflective abilities, they can't see it.

I don't know why this is being discussed in the Days Gone thread and I'm admitttedly just seeing the tail end of this conversation but I did watch a bit of that video. I stopped a few minutes in mainly because I can't stand the "Matter of Fact" tone to whoever that guy is when replying to what the other guy is trying to make a civil debate. Yet..... I know what he speaks of when he says he finds some political violence justifiable.

Like in the sense that almost every revolution eventually boils and has spurts of violence. When people get passionate it is bound to happen. The issue being is that violence should be our last resort and not first alternative. When dealing with Conservative vs Liberal ideology. Liberal ideology believes Conservative ideology to be violence inciting language and subtext. Empowering racism/bigotry in direct or indirect ways is a form of violence. Just as the German people's silence to the Nazi party was a violent non action. This is the perspective. 

I do think its misguided to try and just shut people up when they have different belief structure than you. Doing so just inflames their base in feeling justified in their belief. Martin Luther King was always undermined by resistance. His turning the other cheek when being hosed down and other atrocities allowed people to see his sacrifice and kind of empathize with his movement more. Yet.....he was killed. Someone couldn't handle his words having power. And what happened then? Riots in the streets of people invigorated and angry for being attacked and dismissed. So what was really the deciding factor of change? Was it MLK's pacifism or the eventual fear of violence if change didn't happen? Then there was that tele-Evangelist Anita that was "peacefully" preaching the extinction of homosexuality. Passive resistance went on but at times being passive makes you easier for the powers that be to ignore. So eventually Anita caught a pie in the face on live TV. That violent action demanded the movement be seen and acknowledged. It's a tit for tat thing and violence will only get more violence. Media missinformation by Fox and CNN news makes it very difficult to just let intellectual debate do it's job so violence becomes an even more likely answer.

I wish there was more challenging of logic by opposing view points and let that do the work but sometimes when you are dealing with people's lives that process takes too long.