It's just pointing out that all political power in this world is ultimately held through the direct or indirect threat of violence. It's not a moral judgement but a fact of the world.

If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.

You could also abide by the law while voting for a party that supported whatever minority viewpoint you held.

Of course if you voiced unpopular opinions publicly you might get shot by someone who cites Violet Gibson or Thomas Mair as an inspiration.

Or you know - we could not put up plaques to attempted murderers.

Yes everyone could go around abiding the law all the time, and we could skip the Gordon riots, the suffragettes, the battle of Cable Street etc... . I'm glad that's not the world we live in and that people have the courage to follow through with their convictions against state oppression, with violence if need be.

Cool - so Thomas Mair plaque kickstarter supporter then?

Because as I pointed out - you only cited examples whose politics you agree with.

Take the mental leap.

I’m going to leave you with a quote from wikipedias page on Fascism: “Fascism rejects the assertion that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation”

Congratulations.

I never mentioned what politics I agree with, nor can you infer in good faith that I'd celebrate the murder of Jo Cox. You're greatly over-generalising my argument in order to try and prove an absurd consequence.

Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.

But you regard violence as legitimate and positive political tactic in some circumstances. So did Thomas Mair. I think that belief is problematic, and should not be encouraged. By making the connection between apparently acceptable-for-plaques political violence and the national-day-of-morning kind, I hope to draw attention to the fact that it’s fundamentally problematic.

Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?

The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.

Again, you're greatly over-generalising what I'm saying. If violence can sometimes be justified, doesn't follow that everyone who uses violence is justified. It certainly doesn't follow that I support fascism.

There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.

So, people die of starvation in civilized countries - that doesn’t make it right - but we also don’t put up plaques celebrating it.

And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.

It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”

So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.

Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”

> we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong

We don't, though. Violence is legal if it's being carried out by state-sanctioned actors such as the police or army in the course of their duties.

For a state this seems somewhat inevitable, however pretty much all state entities have a duty to use as little violence as possible to get the job done. See European human rights act, Geneva convention etc.

At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.

Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.

Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.

“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.

> if your principle is that political violence is fine

No, that's not my principle and I've corrected you multiple times.

Lifestyle choice then ?

You ask questions rather than state a position, so I'm not actually sure what your position is.

Do you reject all violence? Under all circumstances? Some think that to be admirable. I think it's nonsense.

I reject putting up plaques to praise attempted murderers for the reason that it sets a bad example.