5 ms·

I don’t think free speech/ assaults is a relationship in isolation. The US particularly seems to have issues with violence being a preferred method of conflict

I don’t think free speech/ assaults is a relationship in isolation. The US particularly seems to have issues with violence being a preferred method of conflict resolution, all else being equal.

claytongulick 4y ago
Do you have any information to back up this claim? From what I understand, the US is fairly unique in history for pioneering peaceful transfer of power without violence. Elections are a form of revolution each term. In most of world history, this type of transfer of power was incredible bloody. Also, from what I see on the news, the US isn't at all unique when it comes to political violence, and in general it's much more rare and less extreme than what I see elsewhere. It wasn't long ago that Ireland had horrific bloody political conflict, the likes of which we've never seen in this country other than the civil war.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > the US is fairly unique in history for pioneering peaceful transfer of power without violence. The US inherited much of its political culture from that of England (not to say that the US didn't innovate heavily and positively on top of that heritage). Would you say that England / the UK has had less of a history of peaceful transferring of power since American independence, or since the US Civil War? You can say that the UK has faced violent opposition to its rule in Northern Ireland, but it would seem more reasonable to equate that to attacks like 9/11 in the US.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    If you go back to the civil war in the US, you'd also be going back to violent opposition to its rule in what's now the Republic of Ireland, its genocide in Kenya, the collapse of the British Empire in general. It's true that (as in America) the metropole has been relatively peaceful in the UK, but outside of that it's pretty grim.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      I think that's some reasonable context, thank you, even though it would require quite a leap to make the claim that it was the "pretty grim" actions in the Empire that enabled the peaceful transfer of power in the metropole. (It could equally be the case, for example, that peace back home allowed the Empire to flourish enough to lead to the inevitable grim outcomes).
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  A regime is peaceful until it isn't. Monarchies lasted for millennia, USA isn't nearly as old.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Monarchies lasted for millennia, USA isn't nearly as old. USA is actually doing pretty well at 246 years old. There are certainly monarchies that lived longer, but 246 is above average for regimes. For instance, the current french regime has only been around for 64 years[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fifth_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fifth_Republic
nradov 4y ago
That is factually incorrect. Europeans, for example, are on average more violent than Americans. Count up the rate of violent deaths in America versus Europe since 1776.

I don’t think free speech/ assaults is a relationship in isolation. The US particularly seems to have issues with violence being a preferred method of conflict resolution, all else being equal.

claytongulick 4y ago

Do you have any information to back up this claim? From what I understand, the US is fairly unique in history for pioneering peaceful transfer of power without violence. Elections are a form of revolution each term. In most of world history, this type of transfer of power was incredible bloody. Also, from what I see on the news, the US isn't at all unique when it comes to political violence, and in general it's much more rare and less extreme than what I see elsewhere. It wasn't long ago that Ireland had horrific bloody political conflict, the likes of which we've never seen in this country other than the civil war.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> the US is fairly unique in history for pioneering peaceful transfer of power without violence. The US inherited much of its political culture from that of England (not to say that the US didn't innovate heavily and positively on top of that heritage). Would you say that England / the UK has had less of a history of peaceful transferring of power since American independence, or since the US Civil War? You can say that the UK has faced violent opposition to its rule in Northern Ireland, but it would seem more reasonable to equate that to attacks like 9/11 in the US.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  If you go back to the civil war in the US, you'd also be going back to violent opposition to its rule in what's now the Republic of Ireland, its genocide in Kenya, the collapse of the British Empire in general. It's true that (as in America) the metropole has been relatively peaceful in the UK, but outside of that it's pretty grim.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    I think that's some reasonable context, thank you, even though it would require quite a leap to make the claim that it was the "pretty grim" actions in the Empire that enabled the peaceful transfer of power in the metropole. (It could equally be the case, for example, that peace back home allowed the Empire to flourish enough to lead to the inevitable grim outcomes).
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
A regime is peaceful until it isn't. Monarchies lasted for millennia, USA isn't nearly as old.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Monarchies lasted for millennia, USA isn't nearly as old. USA is actually doing pretty well at 246 years old. There are certainly monarchies that lived longer, but 246 is above average for regimes. For instance, the current french regime has only been around for 64 years[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fifth_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fifth_Republic

nradov 4y ago

That is factually incorrect. Europeans, for example, are on average more violent than Americans. Count up the rate of violent deaths in America versus Europe since 1776.