I must remind you that starving a child is violence. Neglecting school children is violence...

Veterans are welfare queens of another order, it's truly astounding how much the average American owes to Johnny for getting his legs blown off in Israel's name.

If you replaced every instance of "violence" in this post with "power" would it be any different minus the loaded negative connotations of the original?

people would respect that power with the same passion they whine against that violence

i dont think its entirely untrue but i think anyone who draws a conclusion other than some sort of moral or religious one is a false. some ppl make a jump from true statement to random policy recommendation that has no obvious connection

>random redneck takes a shitty check each month because he signed up to maintain american hedgemony
>raise the pitchforks now!

>random guy in california was born to rich parents and essentially lives like 18th century landed gentry, sipping the tears of people who actually work for a living in cups worth more than your entire life
>I aint even mad

what is your end game and why do you care so much about grabbing your fellow crabs who barely make it out of the bucket?

possibly true but that only indicates that violence is built into the fabric of reality and thus shouldn't afford it's manifestations such significance (perhaps except in its most concentrated or egregious forms)

But the problem is, if you trace the genealogy of this situation, "power" has to be the original term, since it refers to the concept as it appears in the mind and feeling of the "perpetrator". It is a positive description. That leaves us with "violence" as a reaction, and inversion, of the concept of "power". How can that be the more correct interpretation if it originates within the weaker perspective?

feminists/poc/traps always describe themselves as fierce and powerful in their ramblings, are described as so in the media even if they just uploaded a nude in instagram or put a winged eyeliner on the eye, there’s a total lack of understanding of their own position from their perspective. it’s aggression to who doesn’t support your delusions, the cis white males, not a criticism of actual power structures which are very hard to put in a word

Why do Americans have to shoehorn their left/right political dichotomy bullshit into every fucking thread? Thinking like this is the reason your country is a partisan shit hole.

>american hedgemony [sic]
>actually work
These are loaded phrase and before anyone can answer your question you'll have to clarify how these negative connotations are tenable after this analysis:

>the OP itself is about "left wing theories of power"
>HURR DUMB AMERICAN WITH YOUR LEFTIST BOOGEYMEN GO BE FAT SOMEWHERE ELSE

motherfucker I'm talking about actual leftists and I have not mentioned my politics at all so you can just buzz off sir

>t. yurokebab

>Ghetto housing is violence

What is ghetto housing?

Housing for ghetto people, aka blacks.

this dude is using marxist conceptions of structural violence which can be reinterpreted to allow for collective grievances

Well, good job. They've taken the gravity from the word "violence" and made it into something silly. Was this their intention? It's kind of like how racism went from "Wanting to lynch blacks and keep them out of the community" to "not wanting whites to be replaced by blacks." Now nobody cares about racism. Nobody will care about violence, either, if these definitions are accepted.

Of course everything is violence, merely exerting yourself as a living being is violent, requires killing, requires acquiring resources from a nature that is not inclined to freely share. Whether it's killing an animal, chopping down a tree or reaping grain, every survival action requires force to be applied against other living things and their fruits. Either we exert this force ourselves or hire someone to do it on our behalf.

Violence is a fundamental, essential, universal component of life. The only thing that annoys me is these people can figure that out but not actually draw the right conclusions based on that understanding.

Power is just a mask that violence wears. All power comes down to the ability to do violence, be it intellectual or physical.

So they should live in caves or mud huts or what? That seems more racist.

>Redefining violence as a naturalistic function of societal bed-wetting.

Super edgy, haven't heard this one before.

America's more LARPing CringeFest than 'shit hole' of any ilk. Relatively speaking.
t. well, YOU know..

>i dont think its entirely untrue but i think anyone who draws a conclusion other than some sort of moral or religious one is a false

I'm continually surprised at how this sort of critical theory is basically atheist Christianity.

Gravity comes from heaviness, a struggle to endure life.

>"not wanting whites to be replaced by blacks."
This topic is silly. We don't care about it.

>18th century landed gentry
>california
kek, don't think so. Even the wealthiest silver spoon faggot born to someone like Mark Zuckerbergsteinman is a bourgeois prole nowadays. Except for money they're no different from the redneck.

defending yourself against violence is violence.

violence = bad is a meme.

Reminds me of the "everything is rhetoric" meme. Which is to say it's mostly horseshit

>everything is violence
Well, given that these people are working from the perspective that perspective is the totality of meaning, they literally can't be wrong with a statement of "Everything is violence" when they perceive all actions to be violent.

The ironic part is that their entire foundation for these thoughts relies on things like deconstruction, phenomenology, other general misinterpretations of post-modernism, etc., all of which ultimately argue that understanding can only be achieved once you've detached your perspective from a self-oriented perspective. Despite that, these people have nearly deified individuality and insist on twisting the world into their own perspective on things.

If perspective is everything, and I perceive there to be no violence, how can your perception of everything being violence be correct? etc. so on, et al, ad nauseum, so forth They don't consider that possibility though. They insist a singular perspective is obviously the right one, even though the fundamental constructive ideology of their own argument explicitly states that such thinking is the foundation of all incorrect ideas.

i know the daughter of a top tier book editor. they are rich and of noble ancestry, cultured, net millions a year. she of course dresses differently and talks with a poise but all of her consumables are nothing more than that of a very average girl. she likes tv stars, youtube ecelebs, she was thrilled about meeting some idiotic singer in a restaurant.

>all power comes down to some arbitrary shit i just made up on the spot
Conversely, power is the ability to refuse to wield some kind of social authority antagonistically despite the fact that you know you have no consequences for doing so. Submitting to the animal =/= power.

It's like Stirner and Marx had a baby.

A actual Saint Max.

This
I'd be fine with an aristocracy if they didn't have plebeian tastes and interests

>power is the ability to refuse to wield some kind of social authority antagonistically despite the fact that you know you have no consequences for doing so
>herewego
do they have to actually act on this power to be powerful?

like can i be considered powerful if i oppress hundreds of my slaves yet i have the ability to refuse my social authority over them (for no consequences) however i ultimately choose not to use this ability?

part of wielding social authority in an ethical way is understanding that people have differing abilities and that treating them the same way is horrible for everyone in the end. Understanding that yet giving in to your need to virtue signal is incredibly immoral (see David's malediction on Ahitophel). To be completely honest many blacks on the lower third or so of the spectrum would be much more content as slaves, and I'm not even kidding.

>utilitarianism

>utilitarianism
I'm not talking about content as in happy, I'm talking about content as in content mind body and soul.

>part of wielding social authority in an ethical way is understanding that people have differing abilities and that treating them the same way is horrible for everyone in the end.
But not all of my slaves are treated equal, i reward the more docile and meek slaves, whilst punishing the more rebellious. Also even if i was to treat them all equally that would not be horrible for me, it would perhaps even save time and motivate them if they were treated harshly to the point of crushing any desire for rebellion (e.g. using psychological techniques). So you're wrong to say it's horrible for everyone, i enjoy it.

Also i don't feel any need to virtue signal in regards to my slaves. They are quite literally separate from my image and operation in society. They are part of my home and private life, i rarely get visitors, and none who are acquaintances.

My slaves aren't only blacks either. I find that people of the Jewish and Christian faiths are spiritually suited to slavery, as is evidenced by the genealogy of their religions.

You realize that nature is the ultimate slaveholder right? It doesn't provide food, water, or protection from violence in order to protect it's cotton pickers. In this situation you've just replaced nature as a kinder and gentler master for a group of people who would be even worse off on their own.

Because I'm quite literally the second guy

Same thing.

what's a better moral treatment of power then? Egoism is for autistic spergs.

google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/342513-dog-nazi-salute-arrested/amp/

Everything is violence, user

>he thinks the landed gentry weren't silver spoon rednecks and confuses them with aristocrats, missing the point of my analogy

who's the pleb here now

>You realize that nature is the ultimate slaveholder right? It doesn't provide food, water, or protection from violence in order to protect it's cotton pickers
Honest question, are you clinically retarded?

If I didn't provide those thing my slaves would all die and i would have no slaves. How is nature the ultimate slaveholder if she is that irrational?

the analogy makes no sense. humans ravage nature in order to stay alive. if anything even my slaves are slavemasters in regards to how they treat nature (they defecate on her, eat the grains she works hard to produce, etc).

...

...

I don't think you can defend this ridiculous statement.

I don't think you can take this ridiculous image as a serious argument

Maybe they mean the housing is cheap/overcrowded?

they should get a job

you got a license to sell hot dogs chico man?