On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2014, at 2:57 AM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
>> Agreed about the silliness of 'nonviolence' but I'm not sure that putting it
>> in the context of 'privilege' tells us much about what's wrong with it, or
>> where it comes from.
>
> Would you care to explain why you believe 'nonviolence' is silly? What's wrong with the strategy of non-violence as you see it?
I was a little too sweeping. There are plenty of occasions when nonviolent tactics [*not* strategy] are just the thing.
What I think is silly is the *cult* of nonviolence -- people for whom it's a moral absolute. I don't think any significant social change ever happens without violence, or without, at least, the threat or imminent prospect of it.