4 ms·

It’s not violence. You can use another word for it but someone denying you their service is not using any force on you. Yes, property is an arbitrary thing def

It’s not violence. You can use another word for it but someone denying you their service is not using any force on you. Yes, property is an arbitrary thing defended by violence, but we both believe in property. I’m just more consistent.

abeppu 3y ago
Suppose for the purposes of dialogue, I invent the word "fiolence" for coercive, non-consensual exercise of power against another, _other_ than the application of painful or destructive physical force towards a body. You can believe fiolence is not a subset of violence, and I can believe they are different manifestations of the same ability to oppress. Some examples of pure fiolence would include: blackmail, false allegations, many forms of theft and fraud. But in many cases, fiolence is either combined with force or the threat of physical violence to create new harms. Suppose prisoners A and B are both subject to the forces of physical confinement but B is held in prolonged solitary confinement, which the OHCHR recognizes as torture. Or, as at Guantanamo, B is kept in cell with painfully bright lights and loud music to create sleep deprivation. Or B is held close to growling dogs on a very short leash, but no explicit threat is made that the dog will be allowed to bite them. Or B is given insufficient food, or denied access to medical care. All of these are harms _beyond_ the application of force to physically confine, which A also experiences. Yes, absolutely, physical force or the threat of physical force can be justified and necessary to stop fiolence. And if you believe that the state should have any capacity to use arrest someone for wire fraud or smuggling or tax evasion, or that an armed sheriff's deputy can enforce an eviction order, or that a group of protesters can be arrested if they disruptively block a freeway or trespass onto an airport runway -- all of those are cases where force or the credible threat of force are used in response to something other than force. We live in a society of laws which limit much more than just the application of physical force to each other's bodies -- because actual freedom and justice require more than just not getting physically beaten.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  No. Coercion implies force, I’m not using any force on you by deciding not to service you. Stop trying to change definitions. Blackmail where someone’s physical property is stolen and held ransom is force. False allegations to the police to induce an arrest is a threat of force. Theft of physical property or staying on someone else’s property is literal physical force. What force am I using on you or your things when I decide not to host you on my website? To address the prisoners, lights and sound are arguably force, the extent at which it’s acceptable is up for debate. Not giving you food or healthcare is not force. However, being forced to be exposed to lights and sound, and being stopped from getting food and healthcare yourself is absolutely force. And you don’t get to combine actual physical threats with things that are not force to pretend like they are force.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    Blackmail is not about stealing or ransoming physical property, but rather about a threat to communicate damaging claims, true or fabricated; stop trying to change definitions. False allegations need not be used to induce arrest, but may be to defame, shame or stigmatize. Theft of non-physical property, e.g. almost all money, need not involve any force. > What force am I using on you or your things when I decide not to host you on my website? You're really not getting it; "force" is not the point. > And you don’t get to combine actual physical threats with things that are not force to pretend like they are force. Combining fiolence with force, and comparing the outcome with force alone naturally tells us about the impact of fiolence. When human rights experts say that prolonged solitary confinement is torture, it is because the psychological harm is severe, not because the threat of physical force is any different. If you think there's a moral difference between imprisoning someone and imprisoning and torturing someone through non-force means, then those extra actions must bear some real moral weight. We live in the context of a society where the threat of force by the state is omnipresent, and non-physical means of manipulating that threat can nevertheless be fatal.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      Sure thing. Then the blackmail, false allegations and “theft” of non-physical things you’re describing do not justify a forceful response. It’s that simple. The impact of something that isn’t force is irrelevant, the only reason either situation is problematic is because of the forceful imprisonment. If you remove the force, then the comparison would become voluntarily living in a cell vs voluntarily living in solitary confinement, and neither situation is less moral than the other.

abeppu 3y ago

Suppose for the purposes of dialogue, I invent the word "fiolence" for coercive, non-consensual exercise of power against another, _other_ than the application of painful or destructive physical force towards a body. You can believe fiolence is not a subset of violence, and I can believe they are different manifestations of the same ability to oppress. Some examples of pure fiolence would include: blackmail, false allegations, many forms of theft and fraud. But in many cases, fiolence is either combined with force or the threat of physical violence to create new harms. Suppose prisoners A and B are both subject to the forces of physical confinement but B is held in prolonged solitary confinement, which the OHCHR recognizes as torture. Or, as at Guantanamo, B is kept in cell with painfully bright lights and loud music to create sleep deprivation. Or B is held close to growling dogs on a very short leash, but no explicit threat is made that the dog will be allowed to bite them. Or B is given insufficient food, or denied access to medical care. All of these are harms _beyond_ the application of force to physically confine, which A also experiences. Yes, absolutely, physical force or the threat of physical force can be justified and necessary to stop fiolence. And if you believe that the state should have any capacity to use arrest someone for wire fraud or smuggling or tax evasion, or that an armed sheriff's deputy can enforce an eviction order, or that a group of protesters can be arrested if they disruptively block a freeway or trespass onto an airport runway -- all of those are cases where force or the credible threat of force are used in response to something other than force. We live in a society of laws which limit much more than just the application of physical force to each other's bodies -- because actual freedom and justice require more than just not getting physically beaten.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
No. Coercion implies force, I’m not using any force on you by deciding not to service you. Stop trying to change definitions. Blackmail where someone’s physical property is stolen and held ransom is force. False allegations to the police to induce an arrest is a threat of force. Theft of physical property or staying on someone else’s property is literal physical force. What force am I using on you or your things when I decide not to host you on my website? To address the prisoners, lights and sound are arguably force, the extent at which it’s acceptable is up for debate. Not giving you food or healthcare is not force. However, being forced to be exposed to lights and sound, and being stopped from getting food and healthcare yourself is absolutely force. And you don’t get to combine actual physical threats with things that are not force to pretend like they are force.
- abeppu 3y ago
  Blackmail is not about stealing or ransoming physical property, but rather about a threat to communicate damaging claims, true or fabricated; stop trying to change definitions. False allegations need not be used to induce arrest, but may be to defame, shame or stigmatize. Theft of non-physical property, e.g. almost all money, need not involve any force. > What force am I using on you or your things when I decide not to host you on my website? You're really not getting it; "force" is not the point. > And you don’t get to combine actual physical threats with things that are not force to pretend like they are force. Combining fiolence with force, and comparing the outcome with force alone naturally tells us about the impact of fiolence. When human rights experts say that prolonged solitary confinement is torture, it is because the psychological harm is severe, not because the threat of physical force is any different. If you think there's a moral difference between imprisoning someone and imprisoning and torturing someone through non-force means, then those extra actions must bear some real moral weight. We live in the context of a society where the threat of force by the state is omnipresent, and non-physical means of manipulating that threat can nevertheless be fatal.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    Sure thing. Then the blackmail, false allegations and “theft” of non-physical things you’re describing do not justify a forceful response. It’s that simple. The impact of something that isn’t force is irrelevant, the only reason either situation is problematic is because of the forceful imprisonment. If you remove the force, then the comparison would become voluntarily living in a cell vs voluntarily living in solitary confinement, and neither situation is less moral than the other.