Is violent resistance ever justified?

It's one thing to say some people are scum that deserve to get beaten - but I've seen people get the shit kicked out of them by a mob and it is pretty clear that all of human civilization and advancement should be focused on making sure that doesn't happen and finding better ways to resolve disagreements. Even if somebody else is in the wrong then mob violence is the worst way to prove that you are in the right. My grandparents went and fought the nazis in WWII without resorting to that shit.

I'm all in favour of protests and organised resistance. I've done it myself and I think there should be far more of it. And I absolutely think people should defend themselves against aggression and that should potentially include aggression by authority. But as soon as a bunch of folks are just beating somebody up to 'prove their point' or 'shut up the opposition' then any moral high ground has been lost. It just becomes strong vs. weak rather than right vs. wrong and we're just animals instead of supposedly sentient creatures.

In a vacuum? Absolutely.

Always? Of course not. However, revolutions do not often occur without violence.

Source: human history

Actually, there is a great podcast that will likely interest you-- "Revolutions" by Mike Duncan. It explores this topic in-depth across history.

With actually totalitarian systems yes. It ends to be only option.

With handful of people with stupid opinions, it's worse. What ever those opinions are.

As long as people stop and take stock of the world and themselves like this at least some of us will come out the other end of whatever occurs okay.

This is an ancient problem of human mind, deepening in very subjective perspectives, unable to perceive what is real, and creating egoistic behavior in result. When someone feels 'personal' power, and is one to choose the direction of change, they don't choose to share power to everyone. This starts not even in human society but from the level of animals. This is what it is, the worst manifestation of animal nature.

Ancient person who saw a fruit tree would rather eat as much as they can even if they absolutely don't need, because apes would come and pick the tree clean. Or other tribes could come and find it. Or just another person from own tribe, whom the first one does not like for any reason. "Why would anyone else deserve these fruits? I can chose what to do with these" - and this choice rarely considers others as important as oneself, and others' needs, desires, problems as important as persons own. For ages.

One of the effects creating this is a trick of memory and mind, which is controllable but by default mind is lazy. If person doesn't try to think maximally objectively, taking as much information from the past in equation, last events start playing bigger role in decisions. What is strategy for short memory? - Just repeat action which results in biggest instant reward, with no plan. A ruling government can make any choices, but first thing they do is typically guaranteeing that everybody else don't have power to interfere, as changing the situation from new standard of "being on top of decision hierarchy" to anything else is unacceptable (modern example as how collective group acts as a self-sustainable individual). A mob who don't see immediately anything in power to counter it, obsessed with instant feeling of strength and 'righteous' power, succumbs to this ancient genetic controller in minutes, forgetting the whole history of own lives, any reasoning, wreaks any chaos - with no plan.

How to make humanity think, use their wonderful biological machinery, created by millions of years of evolution - is an open question. Only by knowing, and planning more globally and abstractly, optimal for everybody decisions could be made.
Everyone can certainly start from themselves and make the closest and beloved ones comfortable in the best reasonable and honest ways possible; teach each other love <3
Not much better and universal things were created by humanity for ages. Religions, revolutions and secret societies were degraded for same reasons as everything else <3

So regarding violence. It can not be justified. There is no global reason for this madness, and war which never stops. It just will happen until either everybody changes, starts to "think" much more, bringing human to some next stage as a whole simplistic language intended, or until humanity would destroy itself.

Highly depends on the circumstances, the individual situation and your intention/motivation. For example, if you encounter someone who's prone to violent behavior and who (tries to) enforce their agenda or will onto other people, there's a high probability that you have to respond accordingly if you wanna oppose them successfully, since they might not be in a state where they're approachable in any other way any longer- to what extent also depends on individual circumstances, like what you think is needed or the situation requires to reach your goal and to stop this person from maybe abusing you or others/standing in the way of your ideas and simply how far you're willing to go to see not them but you succeed - though the more violent and aggressive you are, the bigger and fiercer might probably be the response you'll be getting (possibly, if you don't plan it right), simple physics. IMO there is no such thing as 'justified violence', only violence that unfortunately might not be avoided in some extraordinary situations; If one has to resort to violence, there already has been something else gone terribly wrong and no other option might be left which would bear any satisfying results. Well, there's so many nuances to it, one could write books over books regarding this topic (and there already have been a bunch) and since I don't wanna drivel too much, I think there's some basic questions when and if at all violence is a viable option to reach one's goals:

• What do you wanna achieve and are there 'easier' ways to obtain it?
• What is your opposition like?
• What do you already have at your disposal and who'd already be willing to support your cause aka what infrastructure is present?
• And, a little bit more philosophical, at what point do you reduce your cause to absurdity, trying to enforce your way of life onto others through the same means you're initially trying to get rid of or at which point, due to possible resistance, becomes your goal unreachable or simply too expensive?

In my eyes, violence (in most cases) is never a necessity, just a quicker means to get results, however beneficial they might be. But the problem the US have, and many other states all around the globe, is not one where you have to remove a certain person or group to make things better, but one that requires radically rethinking how our society is organized and how we use it to our benefit, letting go off our egotistical ways and simple black/white thinking in the process. We've simply become decadent and stuck in our ways, trying to solve today's problems with yesterday's tools, unwilling to accept that they probably don't work that nicely anymore. Divide and conquer, baby.

Well, I could write much more, but I'm fucking lazy and maybe it's already enough to get my point across and if not, I really don't care anyway :P.

EDIT: Oh, and that someone threatening you like that probably was a pussy at heart.

The left have only a tiny amount of the guns, so it is very unlikely you get the bullet, unless you are a cop. If you are a Liberal or left of center, then the saying goes, "Liberals get the bullet too" and you should re-evaluate your thinking to a less violent ideology and seek new friends. Stay away from violent mobs and let the police handle it (call the cops), unless you live in a Liberal place like Berkeley.
Social networks are a cancer on mankind and you should be playing games.

I think most of us here live in first world countries where we try to be more civilized and solve disputes peacefully but I also try to remember that there are still those in very unfortunate environments or situations that may not have a choice. But yeah, mob mentality is dangerous in many ways even not related to violence.

As someone who works for the department of justice: NO!
BTW: Stop with the left vs right, don't you guys see the bigger picture in all of this?

I dislike the wording of your answers.

Generally, disagreements should be resolved peacefully, live and let live and all. But, some people cannot be reasoned with, hate everyone who is different, and consider anyone who is different from them as inferior. These people should never be allowed to have power, and they will latch onto even the slightest sliver, slowly infesting government/society, until evil takes hold of the world. In that case, not only is violent resistance justified, but necessary.