3 ms·

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?

by Retra 7y ago

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.
- Retra 7y ago
  And the world is a more violent place because of it. Nevertheless, there is big difference between the way violence is advocated for between moderates and extremists in terms of severity, frequency, and justification. I didn't ask you who advocates for violence, I asked you why you thought the unrestricted public speech of extremists leads to peace.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee? I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in increased real world violence. People are going to advocate for what they perceive as their interests, and if they can't do it peacefully, they're going to do it violently.
    - Retra 7y ago
      Why do you think they won't be able to do it peacefully?
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced. People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate. If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.
        Retra 7y ago
        You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place. Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example of a political ideology that is inherently violent, and also one that is not inherently violent, other than pure pacifism? >Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf. Because you are worried that people are going to buy what they're selling? Why are you worried about that, specifically?
        Retra 7y ago
        You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is not. You could even return to YouTube with moderated content. I do not find this hypothetical YouTuber to be a peaceful advocate for anybody's interests.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > And the world is a more violent place because of it. I don't think the world becomes more violent because people defend themselves and others. And if it does, it's still worth it compared to surrendering to every would-be tyrant without a fight.

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?

by Retra 7y ago

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.

Retra 7y ago
And the world is a more violent place because of it. Nevertheless, there is big difference between the way violence is advocated for between moderates and extremists in terms of severity, frequency, and justification. I didn't ask you who advocates for violence, I asked you why you thought the unrestricted public speech of extremists leads to peace.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee? I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in increased real world violence. People are going to advocate for what they perceive as their interests, and if they can't do it peacefully, they're going to do it violently.
  - Retra 7y ago
    Why do you think they won't be able to do it peacefully?
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced. People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate. If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.
      - Retra 7y ago
        You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place. Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example of a political ideology that is inherently violent, and also one that is not inherently violent, other than pure pacifism? >Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf. Because you are worried that people are going to buy what they're selling? Why are you worried about that, specifically?
        Retra 7y ago
        You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is not. You could even return to YouTube with moderated content. I do not find this hypothetical YouTuber to be a peaceful advocate for anybody's interests.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > And the world is a more violent place because of it. I don't think the world becomes more violent because people defend themselves and others. And if it does, it's still worth it compared to surrendering to every would-be tyrant without a fight.