4 ms·

I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several si

I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? >At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration. >I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either. >My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them. The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend. >My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. >I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine. The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult. If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. But what is violence to you? Is something only violent when something is resisted? If I tell my taxi driver to give me their money or I will hurt them, and they don't resist me, was there violence? If they say no and I don't do anything to make them was there violence? Before I invest in writing a longer more thought out response: At risk of invoking the ghost of Godwin, here is chart showing the journey from words to legal action to extermination of Jewish people in Nazi Germany: https://museeholocauste.ca/app/uploads/2019/03/anti_jewish_laws_timeline.pdf https://museeholocauste.ca/app/uploads/2019/03/anti_jewish_l... I believe Feb 28, 1933 is clearly violence despite it being manipulation of words and speech. April 7, 1933 is even more clearly violent. In your opinion, at what point would violent resistance have been justified? Nov 9th, 1938? It is not violent only when there is resistance. The act of domination is violent regardless of it being resisted or not. When it is resisted it is obviously violent, but if it is not resisted because the cost is too high, domination is still an act of violence. My perception is that your stance makes an assumption of good faith. In the game of prisoners dilemma, what happens when the other party defects? > What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. Because violence (defection) is obviously bad, but letting defection (violence) be a winning strategy is worse. (beautiful game to demonstrate this property: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/) This gets directly back into the original quote about the paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance is that when you tolerate (cooperate) with those who choose intolerance (defection), you lose. The social contract of tolerance is that when somebody chooses intolerance (defection) as a strategy, you make sure they lose by not tolerating them (also defecting).
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > But what is violence to you? The way the US supreme court interprets the 1st amendment is a good bar. In the US, direct violent threats, and things that are likely to cause imminent lawless action can be illegal, and most everything else is allowed. Almost all speech, in the US, is protected, and there are only a couple, pretty specific and rare situations where people get in trouble for speech. That's a good metric, and solves all the stuff that you brought up in the rest of the post, where you pretend like this is a question that hasn't been discussed to death, and solved, in conversations surrounding the 1st amendment, already. So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence? >At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration. >I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence. I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either. >My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination." This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them. The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend. >My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism. What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. >I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable? Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine. The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult. If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".

hayst4ck 4y ago
> ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. But what is violence to you? Is something only violent when something is resisted? If I tell my taxi driver to give me their money or I will hurt them, and they don't resist me, was there violence? If they say no and I don't do anything to make them was there violence? Before I invest in writing a longer more thought out response: At risk of invoking the ghost of Godwin, here is chart showing the journey from words to legal action to extermination of Jewish people in Nazi Germany: https://museeholocauste.ca/app/uploads/2019/03/anti_jewish_laws_timeline.pdf https://museeholocauste.ca/app/uploads/2019/03/anti_jewish_l... I believe Feb 28, 1933 is clearly violence despite it being manipulation of words and speech. April 7, 1933 is even more clearly violent. In your opinion, at what point would violent resistance have been justified? Nov 9th, 1938? It is not violent only when there is resistance. The act of domination is violent regardless of it being resisted or not. When it is resisted it is obviously violent, but if it is not resisted because the cost is too high, domination is still an act of violence. My perception is that your stance makes an assumption of good faith. In the game of prisoners dilemma, what happens when the other party defects? > What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence. Because violence (defection) is obviously bad, but letting defection (violence) be a winning strategy is worse. (beautiful game to demonstrate this property: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/) This gets directly back into the original quote about the paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance is that when you tolerate (cooperate) with those who choose intolerance (defection), you lose. The social contract of tolerance is that when somebody chooses intolerance (defection) as a strategy, you make sure they lose by not tolerating them (also defecting).
- stale2002 4y ago
  > But what is violence to you? The way the US supreme court interprets the 1st amendment is a good bar. In the US, direct violent threats, and things that are likely to cause imminent lawless action can be illegal, and most everything else is allowed. Almost all speech, in the US, is protected, and there are only a couple, pretty specific and rare situations where people get in trouble for speech. That's a good metric, and solves all the stuff that you brought up in the rest of the post, where you pretend like this is a question that hasn't been discussed to death, and solved, in conversations surrounding the 1st amendment, already. So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed.