- Joined
- May 12, 2008
- Messages
- 13,371
- Reaction score
- 2,238
1.) This has been a mild troll with some tongue in cheek so please give credit where credit is due.LMFAO x 1 000 000
This post is motherfucking genius and I am going to nominate it for post of the year (#poty) in Dec., but I suspect the author was not trying to be funny... which makes it even funnier (but a sad type of funny).
Passive violence is how the British should have fought Gandhi. *two groups standing around in the streets*
I'm fucking dying of laughter here.
2.) That doesn't make what I said untrue. Violence permeates into almost everything we do. It's there and often never given a thought about because it is buried. We obey laws because of the underlying threat of violence. We are civil because of the underlying threat of violence, and we take the garbage out when our wives tell us to because of the direct threat of violence.
Keeping with the Gandhi theme here is a little story regarding how such mundane things can be considered an act of passive violence.
When Arun Gandhi was 6 years old, he threw away a worn pencil, believing his grandfather would give him a new one. Instead, Mahatma Gandhi reproached him and sent him outside in the dark with a flashlight to find the pencil. “I said, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ He wasn’t. I spent hours out there trying to find it,” Gandhi said.
Mahatma Gandhi believed throwing away that pencil was a form of violence. His grandson was lucky to have such a resource while others did not, even if the pencil was used and almost depleted.
People would consider Ghandi's hunger strike protests to be non-violent. It's not true though. It was violence turned inward instead. Non-violence is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition.