3 ms·

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 physica

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

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.