of the peasant's revolt.

Just remember, without one of those horrible princes, (Frederick the Wise) Luther was dead. So yes, he found himself in a box. Luther didn't kill those 100,000, after all.

But that does not change the fact that the Luther was a first-rate intellectual whose Bible defined the German language, and that the followers of Luther have created some of the most enlightened societies on earth, etc. Even in USA, the areas with the best civil life are in areas where Lutherans are dominant.

Perhaps you would like to compare voting rates of Minnesota or North Dakota with places where the brand x Protestants are the majority. Let's see, Minnesota's voting rate has been in the top five for over 80 years.

Sold-out? Try insulting someone who actually deserves it.

isn't the problem. Calling people who are violence advocates “violence advocates” isn’t a problem; calling people who aren’t—or, arguably, aren't—is.

In the specific context of Occupy, the implicit statement you seem to be making is:

If you make an explicit statement excluding violence (harm to others/damage to property) under any and all circumstances, you are not a violence advocate.

and, from that, seemingly arguing the inverse: if you do not make such a statement, you are a violence advocate. The statement is true; its inverse is not necessarily true.

David Graeber provides one instance where it might not be true:

The original GA in Tompkins Square Park that planned the original occupation, if I remember, adopted the principle of diversity of tactics (at least it was discussed in a very approving fashion), at the same time as we all also concurred that a Gandhian approach would be the best way to go. This is not a contradiction: “diversity of tactics” means leaving such matters up to individual conscience, rather than imposing a code on anyone. Partly,this is because imposing such a code invariably backfires. In practice, it means some groups break off in indignation and do even more militant things than they would have otherwise, without coordinating with anyone else…What we found that if we declared “we shall all be in solidarity with one another. We will not turn in fellow protesters to the police. We will treat you as brothers and sisters. But we expect you to do the same to us”—then, those who might be disposed to more militant tactics will act in solidarity as well, either by not engaging in militant actions at all for fear they will endanger others.

One can argue that that line of reasoning is wrong—and certainly people have done that—or that it's better to make an explicit statement excluding violence (I’d say so) but that reasoning, based on experience, on its face is not one of violence advocacy but of reducing the likelihood of violence. You don't keep friends close and enemies closer because you agree more with your enemies—it’s because if you keep your enemies in close proximity you might be able to prevent them from doing unwanted things that they might more likely do at a distance. (Obviously, the groups that Graeber is referring to are not enemies but the behavioral logic is similar.)

There are more general issues, for example: (1) What if someone will not rule out violence as a last resort, only in self-defense? That's not a nonviolent resistance stance but I'm not sure I see that as violence “advocacy.” (It's difficult for me to square reluctance with “advocacy.”) (2) If not ruling out damage to property makes someone a “violence advocate,” then inferring from what Mr./Ms. Antibody said, Gandhi might be considered a “violence advocate”—and that’s rhetorical position I’d want to avoid. (I don’t see any contradiction between arguing for “strict” nonviolence approach—which might exclude damage to property—and not calling someone like Gandhi a “violence advocate.”) Not ruling x out, it seems to me, is not necessarily the same as “advocating x.”

I’m not arguing for the phrase “violence advocate” but, just offhand, I'd limit it to those instances, in the context of resistance strategies, where someone is arguing that violence is always or often more effective as a strategy as compared to the full-range of nonviolent strategies (or that nonviolence is always or often less effective or ineffective than violence) and therefore violence should be the strategy to be employed. That seems to me like what you’re driving at—that to me is more like “violence advocacy”—and I think would clarify, rather than muddy up, the discourse. But, as I said, that’s offhand, and probably can be improved upon.

No one is advocating violence. As I said in the other thread, and you never replied to this point, calling people who don’t think property damage is violence “violence advocates” is like calling pro-choice advocates “pro-abortion”.

We have no moral compass. Morality is a bullshit term, because it describes activity that is between you and God (who, of course, does not exist). What is described by ‘morality’? Sexual taboos. Morality regulates activities that do not actually affect other people.
We do, however, have ethics, which regulate activities that do affect other people. It’s unethical to injure people, for example. Is it unethical to engage in sodomy? I don’t think anyone would ever say that, although many people say it is immoral. That’s the difference, and it is critical.

If you want to talk about whether or not property damage improves our chances, that’s a strategic discussion which is on a different level from the discussion about whether or not it’s violence. If you want to tell us what to or not to do as far as strategy goes, first we have to know that you consider us equals; insulting us by calling us “violence advocates” does not enhance that relationship.

Terminology is absolutely critical. This is what liberals don’t understand, and conservatives seem to get almost instinctually. Words convey ideas. If your words are garbled, your ideas will be as well. It becomes impossible to have a productive conversation, and it becomes impossible to move forward or act in a productive way. Words mean things… sorry if you don’t like it.

As for whether or not property damage is violence, it would take you about five minutes to find out what those who do it actually think, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned about liberals in the past few weeks it’s that it’s much easier to just express judgmental gut feelings rather than do research; to tell you encourages that kind of lazy thinking.

But since I’m here I’ll indulge you. Property damage is not violence because inert objects are not people, and damage to property is only sometimes considered violence (and even then usually only by the political opponents of those doing it); demolishing a decrepit building is not considered “violence” even though it is force applied destructively. Therefore there must be a higher principle involved. The only time such is consistently called “violence” is when it’s against people. For us to call property destruction not violence is not inventing or changing the term, but clarifying it from its otherwise murky state.

Some people claim that property damage is violence because the actor feels forceful or angry when doing it, but, as I said, how a person feels affects no one else, and therefore to be concerned with it falls under the definition of “morality,” which we do not believe in for what should be incredibly obvious reasons- I don’t give a damn what any person thinks, if they don’t act injuriously to other people; you can sit in your basement all day and think of the most hateful, racist, fascist ideas and no one will care if you don’t actually act on them. A person’s feelings are irrelevant; therefore that cannot be an argument for property damage being violent.

It would be nice if you were treating the debate of whether or not property destruction is violence as a strategic question.

Ding ding ding!

... is going to be perceived that way by the general public is just wildly optimistic, and it also creates a massive "soft target" for the media. I mean, come on. The time and space is Chicago on a certain date and the story is Occupy.

Second, your words should offer anyone who wants to avoid violence in OccupyChicago no solace whatever, for three reasons:

1. You say "different groups should literally stay out of each others’ way." But you claim, though falsely, that Black Bloc is not a group. Therefore, by your own words, they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. A loophole one can drive a truck through.

2. If diversity of tactics were non-violent, then its proponents would say that. They don't. I wish I were as optimistic as Fran that the only diverse tactics were the various imaginative forms of protest and persuasion like Aquapy, but I doubt very much that will be the case. The tell here is that DoT proponents consistently refuse to adopt non-violent principles explicitly.

3. Finally, OccupyChicago's website says they're non-violent. But the Chicago Principles, again, do not rule violence out (no matter how defined). So what the Chicago Principles do is take what was previously clear and muddy them. And there's no particular reason I can see to muddy non-violent waters.... Except to produce violence.

And I'd love to be wrong. But very little about the discourse or the process as I see it makes me optimistic. Which is why I'm raising my voice now, before it's too late.