4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed. So if sitting justices decided to re-interpret it in a way that strips people of their rights, would that be a form violence?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > So if sitting justices decided What I am saying is that on speech stuff specifically, the courts have done a great job, and that this speech stuff has been discussed for centuries, in the court system. So, it is not because a judge says something, that makes it ok. Instead, the causation is reversed. People have been doing this 1st amendment thing for centuries, addressing all the crazy hypotheticals that you bring up. And because of that, they've mostly gotten to a good place.
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      I would appreciate it if you would directly answer the question with either a yes, a no, or a yes under specific conditions.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        You didn't actually respond to my comment..... Feel free to quote an exact statement that I made, and say specifically what is right or wrong about it, in reference to the direct quote.

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.

hayst4ck 4y ago
> So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed. So if sitting justices decided to re-interpret it in a way that strips people of their rights, would that be a form violence?
- stale2002 4y ago
  > So if sitting justices decided What I am saying is that on speech stuff specifically, the courts have done a great job, and that this speech stuff has been discussed for centuries, in the court system. So, it is not because a judge says something, that makes it ok. Instead, the causation is reversed. People have been doing this 1st amendment thing for centuries, addressing all the crazy hypotheticals that you bring up. And because of that, they've mostly gotten to a good place.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    I would appreciate it if you would directly answer the question with either a yes, a no, or a yes under specific conditions.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      You didn't actually respond to my comment..... Feel free to quote an exact statement that I made, and say specifically what is right or wrong about it, in reference to the direct quote.