3 ms·

> Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why

> Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans. That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?

lukan 3y ago
"There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy. I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
  - lukan 3y ago
    Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that? I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > How would you propose it should work? Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression. 1) Don't draw the line at zero violence. Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored. Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested. 2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists. 3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
      - lukan 3y ago
        "Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored." And you think, that is a good thing? There used to be laws up until recently, saying there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. And that husbands need to tame their wifes. Some policemen amd judges still think like that. Not my take. And everthing else you argue, was besides every point I made. I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose and not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Let's talk to each other in good faith, respectfully. Maybe I'm in good faith; the solution to disagreement is not to assume the other is all wrong. Maybe I know something you don't, maybe vice-versa, probably both. I'm confused by this statement: > I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose ... So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you? My understanding is that you do, and that's what I addressed. > not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that? A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them.

lukan 3y ago

"There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.

wolverine876 3y ago
It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy. I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
- lukan 3y ago
  Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that? I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > How would you propose it should work? Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression. 1) Don't draw the line at zero violence. Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored. Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested. 2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists. 3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
    - lukan 3y ago
      "Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored." And you think, that is a good thing? There used to be laws up until recently, saying there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. And that husbands need to tame their wifes. Some policemen amd judges still think like that. Not my take. And everthing else you argue, was besides every point I made. I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose and not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Let's talk to each other in good faith, respectfully. Maybe I'm in good faith; the solution to disagreement is not to assume the other is all wrong. Maybe I know something you don't, maybe vice-versa, probably both. I'm confused by this statement: > I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose ... So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you? My understanding is that you do, and that's what I addressed. > not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that? A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them.