2 ms·
Perhaps you haven't given much thought to the edge cases then. For example what if someone is posting racist articles on the web, are they violent or not? Well
by dunkelheit 7y ago
Perhaps you haven't given much thought to the edge cases then. For example what if someone is posting racist articles on the web, are they violent or not? Well that's pretty easy - even if they are not directly violent they may incite violence in others so they partly share the blame. But what if they explicitly say that they are categorically against violence and it will just abstractly be better if certain inferior races would not exist and back it up with a rational-sounding argument? Another example. Is peaceful protest violent or non-violent? Well it is peaceful, nobody touches anyone - it is right in the name. But the protesters will probably bring inconvenience to someone, otherwise they won't be noticed - e.g. a sit-in will obstruct the workings of the target establishment. Is it violence or not? Is public shaming violence or not? It is just words after all, but words that can ruin someone's life. Etc.
- BurningFrog 7y agoI have given it a lot of thought. As has many other thinkers in history. It's not that hard. 1. Posting racist articles is not violence. It's speech. If someone decides to be violent after reading it, it's their decision and their responsibility. 2. Peaceful protest is in general not violent. It might be trespassing and other property crimes. That would give the police or possibly the victims of those crimes the right to use violence against the protestors. But that doesn't make the protests violent. I can't help thinking the reason the left is so keen on calling speech violence, is that they want an excuse to commit violence against the speakers. Subconsciously, of course. Motivated Reasoning and all that.