Why peaceful resistance is so threatening.

2004-11-08 14:57

So, why is it that peaceful resistance is so dangerous?

What makes people throw away their chance at real power, because they look horrible, because they have to smash down that one really polite guy everyone knows is not a threat to them? The answer is simple. He’s not a threat to anyone else, but he’s a threat to the people who want power.

Sometimes, you get people. Maybe they’re cops, maybe they’re moderators. They’re people who have some kind of power. And the reason they have that power is that they are given that power, because they are trusted to use it for the good of the community.

If the community doesn’t need so many people with power, there’s less to go around. If the community is under attack, it needs lots of people with lots of power to protect it. But some of those people, maybe they’re not so good. Maybe they just want the power. The ones who want the power make bad cops.

Enter our peaceful protester. He’s not a threat to the community, but he’s a threat to the bad cops. (By the way, I’m not talking about “police officers” specifically; even more, I’m not talking about everyone who holds these jobs, or performs these duties, but just a few people.) He’s a threat to the cops in two ways. One is that he challenges their authority, their mandate, their very right to exercise all that lovely tasty power. The second, and more dangerous, is that he is a person who offers no threat at all to the community. If there were a lot of people like that, we might not need so many cops.

The problem, I think, is that the bad cops know he’s a threat, but the very thing that makes him a threat to them makes him harmless to everyone else. So, when they react to this threat in their traditional manner, they squash him, because he’s a threat. They lock him up, or they beat him, or they ban him from posting. Whatever. They make the threat go, using power, because that’s what they do.

Only now it gets ugly, because everyone else knows the guy isn’t a threat. To them, to the community as a whole… Suddenly, you can tell which people are defending the community, and which people are defending their own ability to exercise power to control others.

As you may have guessed, I’ve been banned from ChristianForums again. My previous warnings are still on appeal, and the new one is for “flaming”.

Lemme tell you about flaming. Let’s say someone posted, in a political forum, asking whether the Republicans shouldn’t, if Kerry wins, do the same thing Gore did after the dust settled in the 2000 election, and just accept a leader they don’t much like. This response would be a flame:

Posted by brewmama
Ho ho ho ha ha ha ho ha ho ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

This is just too funny!! Oh my goodness!!

(Wiping away the tears), Yeah, well, it was the Dems who started the plan of hiring 10000 lawyers and declaring victory on election night no matter what the vote is, and throwing the whole thing in court right away. That’s how your side plays, honey.

That’s a flame.

What’d I post? We don’t know. It’s a secret; the thread’s been trashed, so I can’t tell you what post I supposedly flamed.

But I will say that I am skeptical that the author of the above post is qualified to judge my post to be a flame. I think, more likely, it was polite, calm, and opposed to the basic premises on which she bases her position, her power, her presumed mandate and authority.

But I’m just gonna keep on talking, preaching the Gospel, and letting them ban me as much as they want. I appeal. The warning gets overturned. I come back, and I tell people it’s all good, and they don’t have to fight, and they can just be friends. And we’ll see who feels threatened by that.

One more thing, you should know, about this whole peaceful resistance thing. I am not alone.

Peter Seebach

---

Comments

  1. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    — seebs_lawyer · 2004-11-08 15:22 · #

  2. But CF doesn't have a democratic government, nor does it seem to want to.

    A libertarian friend of mine pointed out what I think part of the problem might be: The government does not creat rights, but rather, it acknowledges and protects rights. Many people seem to be under the impression that whatever governing body they are subject to creates rights.

    — Marissa · 2004-11-08 15:34 · #

  3. Who says it applies only to democratic governments? Jefferson certainly doesn't

    — seebs_lawyer · 2004-11-08 15:58 · #

  4. But they aren't really interested in fairness either. Or love, or forgiveness, or kindness to those with whom they disagree. Why do they call themselves Christian Forums again when it'd be much more accurate to call themselves Intolerant Bigots Forums?

    — Kassiana · 2004-11-09 05:40 · #

  5. But Kassiana, intolerant bigotry is a staple of xianity. I think that CF is very appropriately named.



    — Goliath · 2004-11-09 07:48 · #

  6. intolerant bigotry is a staple of xianity
    --Tell that to the Universalists and Quakers...and Seebs, for that matter. :) Would you say intolerant bigotry is a staple of HIS Christianity? I'd guess not.

    It's a staple of SOME peoples' Christianity, just like it's a staple of SOME peoples' politics, Democrat and Republican alike.

    — Kassiana · 2004-11-09 22:08 · #

  7. Don't forget some peoples' atheism.

    — dave · 2004-11-10 13:56 · #

  8. SEEBS! I was banned too, and when I come back, I find you're gone! What is the world coming to?

    Of course, I've been banned for prosyletizing, and posting links to books on amazon.com that provide a balanced view of Islam, and are not from Ibn Waraq and the Caner brothers.

    — rahma · 2004-11-11 21:58 · #

  9. Intolerance and bigotry being a staple of xianity does not imply that all xians are bigots...some xians choose to follow the bible less strictly than others. Why are you people acting as though that's my problem, and not that of liberal xians?


    — Goliath · 2004-11-12 09:40 · #

  10. Goliath, intolerance and bigotry is a staple of humanity. I think your mad-on for Christianity is messing up your perspective.

    — Jesse · 2004-11-13 07:16 · #

  11. "Goliath, intolerance and bigotry is a staple of humanity."

    I'm not convinced. Evidence, please?

    "I think your mad-on for Christianity is messing up your perspective."

    ...."mad-on"? Is that the hip, new term that you kids use nowadays for hatred?




    — Goliath · 2004-11-13 17:27 · #

  12. Sigh, what can we do about the tyrany of the moderators? All I did was mention my perspective on God's attributes, in a thread in the democrat forum, and i got slapped for it today.

    Apparently, non christians can't talk about God.

    — rahma · 2004-11-16 22:30 · #

 
---