Thoon

Alright. In the fog of war, here is my entire take:

I must firmly disagree with your justification of vandalism as a legitimate form of activism. My position is grounded in fundamental moral and ethical principles, as well as historical and social analyses, which I will elaborate below.

At the core of my argument is the Kantian ethical framework, which posits that moral actions must be universally applicable and respect the dignity of all individuals. Vandalism, defined as the willful destruction or defacement of property, inherently violates this principle. It treats the property and rights of others as mere means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, which is a clear contravention of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral law is unconditional and applies to all rational agents, meaning that vandalism cannot be justified by appealing to the supposed nobility of its cause or the privilege of those who criticize it

Vandalism involves an act of destruction that disrespects the rights of property owners and the broader community. It is an illegal act that undermines social cohesion and trust, which are essential for any functioning society. The fact that vandalism is often motivated by frustration or a desire to draw attention to an issue does not absolve it of its moral wrongness. Instead, it highlights the need for more constructive and respectful forms of activism.

Read here for more info:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral https://iep.utm.edu/kantview https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics

You suggest that criticizing vandalism is a form of “pearl-clutching” or a sign of privilege. I strongly disagree. Ethical criticism of vandalism is not about privilege or moral superiority but about upholding universal moral principles that apply to all people, regardless of their social position. Privilege does not invalidate the ethical critique of harmful actions; rather, it is the responsibility of all individuals, especially those with privilege, to critically examine their own biases and the implications of their actions.

The coin model of privilege and critical allyship emphasizes that focusing solely on the needs of privileged individuals can marginalize oppressed groups. However, this does not mean that privileged individuals cannot or should not critique harmful behaviors, including vandalism. On the contrary, it is through education, self-reflection, and dialogue that individuals can understand their privilege and work toward justice without resorting to destructive actions

Read here for more info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373175555_Understanding_Privilege_and_Engaging_in_Activism_Elevating_Social_Justice_in_Social_Work https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9 https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/work-with-us/equality-diversity-inclusion/anti-racism-working-group/anti-racism-resources-march-2023-intersectionality-of-privilege

A fundamental ethical principle is that the morality of an action cannot be determined solely by its ends. Vandalism, even when committed in the name of a noble cause, involves illegal and destructive means that harm individuals and communities. The psychological and social effects of vandalism include increased fear, insecurity, and erosion of trust within communities. These consequences undermine the very social fabric that activists often seek to strengthen.

Historical and contemporary evidence shows that extreme protest tactics, including vandalism, often reduce public support for movements and provoke backlash. For instance, the Just Stop Oil movement’s vandalism of artworks and historic sites has been widely criticized and has led to negative public opinion, with surveys showing only 18% support for such actions. This alienation of the public and potential allies weakens the movement’s effectiveness and undermines its goals

Read here for more info: https://unherd.com/newsroom/just-stop-oils-activism-is-turning-into-blackmail/?lang=us https://impactnottingham.com/2022/10/just-stop-oil-is-vandalism-the-way-to-save-the-planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oil https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/just-stop-oil-extinction-rebellion-climate-protest https://blogs.qub.ac.uk/pb-happ/2024/04/22/are-the-just-stop-oil-protests-disruptive-or-democratic

The history of social movements, particularly the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrates the power of nonviolent resistance. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was grounded in love, understanding, and a commitment to justice that sought to win the friendship of opponents rather than humiliate them. This approach not only achieved significant policy changes but also garnered widespread public support and moral authority. Which is wat I actually gathered from your source

Nonviolent resistance is far more effective in effecting social and political change than violent or destructive tactics. It attracts broad support, fosters trust, and builds lasting alliances. Modern activism that prioritizes shock value and media attention over constructive engagement risks alienating potential supporters and diluting the moral integrity of the cause

Read here for more infor: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/civil-rights-leaders/martin-luther-king https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nonviolence https://time.com/5101740/martin-luther-king-peaceful-protests-lessons/ https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-rights-history-project/articles-and-essays/nonviolent-philosophy-and-self-defense/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change https://mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/issue/the-civil-rights-movement-in-mississippi-on-violence-and-nonviolence https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=honors https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-civil-rights-movement-1942-1968 https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism https://southern.libguides.com/civilrights/nonviolentprotest https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/nonviolent-resistance-racial-relations

In closing, I want to reiterate my respect for the causes that vandalism often aims to support—such as climate justice or social equity. These are vital issues that demand attention and action. However, my disapproval of vandalism as a method is unwavering because it is wrong, harmful, and counterproductive. Vandalism undermines the moral fabric of society, alienates potential supporters, and distracts from the substantive goals of activism.

I urge a reconsideration of the justification of vandalism in favor of more constructive, morally sound, and effective forms of activism that respect human dignity and social cohesion. This is not only a matter of ethical principle but also of strategic efficacy in achieving meaningful change.

So I truly hope you are happy now given my extensive paragraph defending something that should be common sense. But alas, here it is.

Enjoy the rest of your day. Because this is plain stupid, and thank God I am not American

Oh boy are you in for a treat. Dont search Nazi femboys then

Mentally fucked. What the hell happened?! Lack of therapy, lack of socializing? Lack of a father?

My god

Your voices? Your money? Your attention?

Please consider those before you start going apeshit, thanks.

Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.

Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.

Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.

Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.

In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.

Bizarre breakthrough, absolute amazing

Let’s cut to the chase. Comparing vandalism to the activism of MLK and Jesus is a false equivalence. Their activism was rooted in peaceful protest, not destruction. You claim vandalism works, so show me the results. How has breaking stuff actually helped the cause?

And let’s talk about your accusation that I’m supporting genocide. That’s a serious claim. I haven’t said anything close to that. Criticizing methods isn’t the same as opposing the movement. I simply believe, nay, KNOW that smashing windows isn’t the way to win hearts and minds. Just look at Just Stop Oil in the UK. Everybody fucking hates them.

You call me an ‘armchair quarterback’, but where’s your playbook? What are your strategies beyond just causing chaos? If we’re talking about effective activism, let’s see some constructive actions. Vandalism might make noise, but does it make change? I doubt it.

Let’s hear your constructive ideas for change instead of defending destruction. What’s your plan beyond breaking things? Because whining like a child might’ve worked when you were young. But we’re adults now.

Christ I despise radicals

Opposing genocide you can rightly do, I share that sentiment.

And never have I defended the genocide in Gaza.

Christ.

Is it really. REALLY that difficult to think: “Oh, genocide is bad. But we also shouldn’t use vandalism”

You can use the same logic by far right racists back in MLK day:

“Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you’ve surely achieved enlightened and superior results to Jesus, right MLK?”

And that argument is just as retarded back in that day.

Lastly, talking about ‘weird’. I find it odd that you put words in my mouth. Never have I stated that I defend said genocide, nor do I attack them? I simply state a fairly common opinion: dont destroy things.

I disagree with him?

Lmao. MLK isn’t a Messiah. He also got things wrong. Such as this.

Edit: I thought MLK advocated for vandalism given this context. I was wrong. He did not, actually. Which only proves why vandalism isnt activism

Never said that, never implied that. Simply stating that two wrongs dont make it right.

Should be common sense

Actual delusional vandalism. The sole reason this movement is frowned upon so much

Wadya expect from China?

Henry Ford would’ve begged to differ.

Ain’t denying that

Yes, free speech is always offensive to someone. That is called accepting the social contract of a free society.