3 ms·

>In a perfect world, we would be able to de-platform those that incite violence against others (for any reason) Should we really do it for any reason? Are the

>In a perfect world, we would be able to de-platform those that incite violence against others (for any reason) Should we really do it for any reason? Are there not some groups of which a certain level of violence (enforced by the state) is good? I can think of many groups of people who engage in actions which we agree it is good to respond with some violence to enslave them in cages. Well, that is one interpretation of what we do when we put someone in prison, but I think we cannot divorce imprisoning someone or putting other punishments on them that are backed by imprisonment from the threat of violence that is put on prisoners to comply with the rules of imprisonment. At the core, laws are enforced by violence or threat thereof and are largely based upon subjective morals. Talk about adding laws is thus talk about bringing violence to some group of people. And sometimes (say laws against murderer or theft), it is required for us to have a civilized society.

choko 8y ago
I believe that inciting violence against others is wrong, but at no point did I argue that we shouldn't have laws against aggressive behavior. Those are two different concepts.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  I think laws are a subset of inciting violence against others. It is more controlled than random mob violence, but it is still violence. For example, some extreme groups support adding laws that will require minorities to leave the country or be imprisoned. That they argue for doing this through the legal framework instead of random mob violence doesn't excuse it in any fashion.
  - choko 8y ago
    I respectfully disagree that advocating for changes in the legal framework constitutes inciting violence, unless you use the most broad and generic definition of advocating violence. Thanks for the civil discourse though.
nybble41 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with inciting or carrying out justified violence—which is to say, a violent response to similar violence practiced by others. Your examples of murder and theft, for example. A murderer cannot rationally object to being put to death; a thief cannot argue against being fined without self-contradiction. The problem is unjustified violence. And I agree with you that most proposals for new laws (including the subject of this article) are advocating for unjustified violence.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  The problems arises not in the easy to agree laws (murder, theft) or the easy to condemn laws (ban on homosexuality), but with the ones which are debatable on if responding with violence is justified. Many would say that violence against pot dealers isn't justified, but what about heroin dealers? What about opiate dealers? Pot dealers who sell to teens?
  - nybble41 8y ago
    If it's "debatable" then it isn't justified. The only universal, objective justification for a violent response is that the other person already did the same thing, and thus cannot claim that responding in kind is wrong without simultaneously condemning their own actions. If you claim that your response is justified on subjective grounds then they can just as easily claim that their actions were justified from their subjective point of view, at which point the whole situation devolves into a case of might-makes-right and justification becomes irrelevant. None of your "debatable" examples would be justified because the actions you are proposing a violent response to are not themselves violent. Even when the original action is violent, the response must be proportional: applying the death penalty for theft would not be justified because it isn't a response in kind.

choko 8y ago

I believe that inciting violence against others is wrong, but at no point did I argue that we shouldn't have laws against aggressive behavior. Those are two different concepts.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I think laws are a subset of inciting violence against others. It is more controlled than random mob violence, but it is still violence. For example, some extreme groups support adding laws that will require minorities to leave the country or be imprisoned. That they argue for doing this through the legal framework instead of random mob violence doesn't excuse it in any fashion.
- choko 8y ago
  I respectfully disagree that advocating for changes in the legal framework constitutes inciting violence, unless you use the most broad and generic definition of advocating violence. Thanks for the civil discourse though.

nybble41 8y ago

There's nothing wrong with inciting or carrying out justified violence—which is to say, a violent response to similar violence practiced by others. Your examples of murder and theft, for example. A murderer cannot rationally object to being put to death; a thief cannot argue against being fined without self-contradiction. The problem is unjustified violence. And I agree with you that most proposals for new laws (including the subject of this article) are advocating for unjustified violence.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
The problems arises not in the easy to agree laws (murder, theft) or the easy to condemn laws (ban on homosexuality), but with the ones which are debatable on if responding with violence is justified. Many would say that violence against pot dealers isn't justified, but what about heroin dealers? What about opiate dealers? Pot dealers who sell to teens?
- nybble41 8y ago
  If it's "debatable" then it isn't justified. The only universal, objective justification for a violent response is that the other person already did the same thing, and thus cannot claim that responding in kind is wrong without simultaneously condemning their own actions. If you claim that your response is justified on subjective grounds then they can just as easily claim that their actions were justified from their subjective point of view, at which point the whole situation devolves into a case of might-makes-right and justification becomes irrelevant. None of your "debatable" examples would be justified because the actions you are proposing a violent response to are not themselves violent. Even when the original action is violent, the response must be proportional: applying the death penalty for theft would not be justified because it isn't a response in kind.