Asklemmy

Self defense. But also like someone else said proportionate response is key. If someone gets mad at you in a bar and throws a punch, pushing him away is fine. Hitting him to subdue him is probably okay. Shooting him dead is not.

I'm also not really okay with people using murder to defend their stuff. Like if someone sneaks into my house and I catch them going out the window with my tv, shooting them is not to me justified. There are more TV's. That guy gets one life. Remember what Gandalf said.

I think a lot of people have like tough guy fantasies about shooting a burglar and it always makes me uncomfortable.

On the other hand, if someone was on trial for shooting a Nazi dead I would find them not guilty. Shame that Nazi spontaneously bled out. But at least he's gone before he killed my entire family and friends.

When someone who I was supposed to be able to trust kept repeatedly trying to record me naked in the shower, I retaliated once by kicking him hard in the face. I was told that what I did was wrong and violence was never the answer. I disagree.

When the rich break the social contract.

Punching nazis. Always acceptable, even encouraged.

Nobody else has mentioned proportionality.

When responding to aggression, the response should not significantly escalate the risk. So lethal force should only be applied in scenarios where there is a lethal threat, etc.

Violence is justified when it’s needed to protect yourself or someone else from violence. That’s about it, honestly.

I am not a fan of pre-emptive violence.

I heard a quote that has really stuck with me, it goes something like "violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived"

I don't really condone violence, but this quote has really gotten me thinking.

Self defense, as part of a game (such as wrestling) or in BDSM, when both sides are okay with it and don't face actual danger.

Self défense, yep. On a battlefield ? Let these old fuck fight one vs one to resolve their conflict. A noble end is so fucking subjective that I think it would be a terrible idea.

Use of some violence is justified to stop another bigger, ongoing violence.

Violence is justified when you have no other means left to defend yourself or someone else otherwise.

At which point I would like to add that people will sometimes not be able to see the means they have left because they are put in a stressful situation in a second. I feel like you can't really blame them for that.

Violence as a response should always be in proportion. That should avoid escalation. In an ideal world.

Unfortunately some people won't stop. Those people need to be put into prison where they cannot hurt anyone anymore.

Much more often than I actually do it.

When you are the victim of a loot ninja

Yes.

To protect against violence

Self defense but also including defending your rights, freedom, property, and sovereignty

Self defense

Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching.

I live with this in mind every day.

Violence is a form of escalation. One should never cause a conflict to come to a new height and should only resort to something if in response to anything of that same height.

Also, if a ruler of a nation resorts to that, it shows they're not a great/effective ruler. Fluency in how to rule is determined by how much peace you can accomplish with as little change as possible. Less is more, as they say. If you have to punish people too often like some are doing, you're violating that "less is more" rule.

Only when all other options are ruled out. And obviously, you should not be the aggressor in any situation

when someone is WRONG on the internet