4 ms·

Again, I hope I was minimally offensive. You were not, but your primary offence was of gross ignorance. This likely explains why you feel isolated in your view

Again, I hope I was minimally offensive. You were not, but your primary offence was of gross ignorance. This likely explains why you feel isolated in your view. You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical conclusions. I would definitely recommend taking a step back and considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you hold.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> your primary offence was of gross ignorance Well, I'm here now, trying to correct that. > You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical conclusions. Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence (I don't think anyone--fascists or leftists--is talking about a general tolerance[^1] for violence)? And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). Note that there are people who assert that the government should enforce stricter speech codes, but the more common and more disturbing practice is cancellation (or defending the same) of livelihood and healthcare ("Social Consequences") for ideological transgressions while arguing in the next breath that these are basic human rights. I'm not a philosopher, but allowing citizens to deny each other their basic human rights seems (on the basis of speech) seems incompatible with free speech. > I would definitely recommend taking a step back and considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you hold. I agree, hence this thread. :) [^1]: I assume you meant "tolerance of violence" rather than "rejection of violence"
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence? No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those lines. We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). There is no qualitative difference between these ideas – but there is a complex series of ongoing discussions and nuances. Most people in developed democracies would consider the general principle of "free speech" to be essential to a functioning society; further, most would assert that this freedom includes some level of right to cause offence. Beyond this there is likely to be little agreement on the extent and restrictions of such rights – this is why nuance is so important. You may be entirely entitled to say what you wish; this right comes with the imperative that others are free to refuse to participate, and are free to object to those who support and promote speech you disagree with. This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. I'm having a hard time making sense of this. A precondition for democracy is that we submit to the democratic process. If one or more groups refuses to submit to that process (presumably because their vision is unpersuasive), it doesn't seem like an indictment of any particular democratic process. A perfectly good channel may exist for peacefully resolving conflict, but if one party to a conflict is utterly unwilling to peaceably resolve it then I'm not sympathetic to the idea that it's a deficiency in the channel. Moreover, that party may actively be sabotaging the democratic process (indeed, what is political violence in a liberal democracy but an extreme form of sabotaging the democratic process)? > This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you. I wasn't debating whether or not objection or criticism are out of bounds of free speech--they are decidedly in-bounds. I think we're agreed on that much. I'm positing that threatening someone's livelihood and access to healthcare falls well out of bounds of free speech--that a society in which this is common is not a society that possesses "free speech". So if you have a faction that advocates for speech codes and practices/condones cancellation and political violence, how can we credibly argue that that group is "fighting to restore democracy"? Aren't those behaviors among the ills associated with fascism, and if so, shouldn't we be similarly concerned about them? Or do those properties only become "evil" when arranged in the specific form that we call fascism?
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. TL;DR sometimes violence is ok, if I am not satisfied with our democracy. If people use political violence it must be our fault that they are doing it, not the fault of those committing violence. I often see this trotted out when groups like BLM are committing armed insurrection, burning down court houses, police stations, etc. BLM might very well burn down the MN state capital building if Derek Chouvin gets acquitted, at which point people people who were so upset about the Trump supporters protesting in the capital building will then cheer for another capital building to be burned to the ground by mostly peaceful protesters, because that is violence that they have decided is good violence. The problem with this argument, is that you have lost the high ground. ANYONE who is unsatisfied with the government or society has the green light now to be violent. They can trot out the same definition you gave, word for word. Indeed, if White nationalists don't feel represented in government, and feel all peaceful means of expressing themselves have been exhausted, why is violence wrong for them? Would you say that in those cases we are the ones to blame, for marginalizing their voices?

throwaway894345 6y ago

> your primary offence was of gross ignorance Well, I'm here now, trying to correct that. > You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical conclusions. Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence (I don't think anyone--fascists or leftists--is talking about a general tolerance[^1] for violence)? And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). Note that there are people who assert that the government should enforce stricter speech codes, but the more common and more disturbing practice is cancellation (or defending the same) of livelihood and healthcare ("Social Consequences") for ideological transgressions while arguing in the next breath that these are basic human rights. I'm not a philosopher, but allowing citizens to deny each other their basic human rights seems (on the basis of speech) seems incompatible with free speech. > I would definitely recommend taking a step back and considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you hold. I agree, hence this thread. :) [^1]: I assume you meant "tolerance of violence" rather than "rejection of violence"

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence? No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those lines. We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). There is no qualitative difference between these ideas – but there is a complex series of ongoing discussions and nuances. Most people in developed democracies would consider the general principle of "free speech" to be essential to a functioning society; further, most would assert that this freedom includes some level of right to cause offence. Beyond this there is likely to be little agreement on the extent and restrictions of such rights – this is why nuance is so important. You may be entirely entitled to say what you wish; this right comes with the imperative that others are free to refuse to participate, and are free to object to those who support and promote speech you disagree with. This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. I'm having a hard time making sense of this. A precondition for democracy is that we submit to the democratic process. If one or more groups refuses to submit to that process (presumably because their vision is unpersuasive), it doesn't seem like an indictment of any particular democratic process. A perfectly good channel may exist for peacefully resolving conflict, but if one party to a conflict is utterly unwilling to peaceably resolve it then I'm not sympathetic to the idea that it's a deficiency in the channel. Moreover, that party may actively be sabotaging the democratic process (indeed, what is political violence in a liberal democracy but an extreme form of sabotaging the democratic process)? > This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you. I wasn't debating whether or not objection or criticism are out of bounds of free speech--they are decidedly in-bounds. I think we're agreed on that much. I'm positing that threatening someone's livelihood and access to healthcare falls well out of bounds of free speech--that a society in which this is common is not a society that possesses "free speech". So if you have a faction that advocates for speech codes and practices/condones cancellation and political violence, how can we credibly argue that that group is "fighting to restore democracy"? Aren't those behaviors among the ills associated with fascism, and if so, shouldn't we be similarly concerned about them? Or do those properties only become "evil" when arranged in the specific form that we call fascism?
- apostacy 6y ago
  > We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. TL;DR sometimes violence is ok, if I am not satisfied with our democracy. If people use political violence it must be our fault that they are doing it, not the fault of those committing violence. I often see this trotted out when groups like BLM are committing armed insurrection, burning down court houses, police stations, etc. BLM might very well burn down the MN state capital building if Derek Chouvin gets acquitted, at which point people people who were so upset about the Trump supporters protesting in the capital building will then cheer for another capital building to be burned to the ground by mostly peaceful protesters, because that is violence that they have decided is good violence. The problem with this argument, is that you have lost the high ground. ANYONE who is unsatisfied with the government or society has the green light now to be violent. They can trot out the same definition you gave, word for word. Indeed, if White nationalists don't feel represented in government, and feel all peaceful means of expressing themselves have been exhausted, why is violence wrong for them? Would you say that in those cases we are the ones to blame, for marginalizing their voices?