I agree. Unfortunately that sort of injustice is also one of the hardest to stop... it's not something you can just throw money at, or something you can defeat through violence. It can only truly be stopped through mutual understanding and acceptance.
[ Even if they don't accept it, tolerance at the very least, since usually through tolerance some can gradually become a form of acceptance. ]
Actually... violence works, if it stops the person who's causing the trouble. Understanding and acceptance is great if you have the time for it, but sometimes, the only choice is removing the leader driving the hatred and attacks before they can finish the job.
That is true, to a point. You're right that understanding and acceptance only work for the long term, but when it comes to someone being an immediate threat, violence may be the only option. Though I believe it should be the last option. .. that said it's still risky to opt for a violent route, since there's the chance of their followers coming back for revenge, or the one that's killed becomes a martyr ..and worse, you end up becoming just as bad or worse than the person you kill, even if it's in the interest of peace.
It's an easier answer when the person you need to stop is stronger by far than anyone else in his army. The soldiers might act independently without him, but not anywhere near as dangerously then when he was around.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true - at least in my experience. Certainly the leaders were far more dangerous, but some of their followers were just as much, especially when they had access to greater number or weaponry. You never know what someone would do to rise in ranks or earn the approval of someone above them.
At the very least I can agree that if someone like that can't be reasoned with and is unwilling to be tolerant of others, then violence may end up being a necessary option.
In this case... the other strongest person had been dealt with already. Without them, the people they wanted to exterminate had a very good chance of surviving.
In that case, it's good that the problem has been dealt with.
[ Although 'good at least s/he's dead' is definitely not a mentality she wanted to be comfortable with), she at least knew that it a necessary choice. She knew some who believed that no matter what it wasn't, and that was ...naive, sadly. ]
Then they'll be able to rebuild their lives and move on safely?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trashtalker) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
bakerstreet2025-05-16 09:00 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[ Even if they don't accept it, tolerance at the very least, since usually through tolerance some can gradually become a form of acceptance. ]
no subject
no subject
I don't think it's an easy answer.
no subject
no subject
I'm not sure that's necessarily true - at least in my experience. Certainly the leaders were far more dangerous, but some of their followers were just as much, especially when they had access to greater number or weaponry. You never know what someone would do to rise in ranks or earn the approval of someone above them.
At the very least I can agree that if someone like that can't be reasoned with and is unwilling to be tolerant of others, then violence may end up being a necessary option.
no subject
no subject
[ Although 'good at least s/he's dead' is definitely not a mentality she wanted to be comfortable with), she at least knew that it a necessary choice. She knew some who believed that no matter what it wasn't, and that was ...naive, sadly. ]
Then they'll be able to rebuild their lives and move on safely?
no subject