4 ms·

A liberal prohibition on violent speech is an aspirational privilege of a people who have solved all their social problems to such a degree that the credible th

by mapt 2y ago

A liberal prohibition on violent speech is an aspirational privilege of a people who have solved all their social problems to such a degree that the credible threat of violence is never necessary for justice or progress. Or an aspirational privilege of an aristocracy who have solved all of their material problems at the expense of everybody else, and demand militant proactive protection of their hoard and their personal safety. In our history, the credible threat of social violence has been absolutely necessary for justice & progress on numerous occasions. It's why we have everything from civil rights for racial minorities to voting rights for women to labor rights for workers to generous benefits for veterans. The establishment response to somebody like a Martin Luther King is mockery and condemnation, and only when fear of a Malcolm X led uprising becomes salient does the political capital to sue for peace, form.

kurthr 2y ago
I don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US). Whether it was suffrage or labor rights, the greatest power for violence was always with the status quo and not with those protesting. Often violence has brought about change in perception opposite to its intent. This was true in civil rights, gay rights, antiwar, and labor movements. So I disagree that prohibition of violent public speech is an aspirational privilege otherwise necessary for justice and progress. A terrorist Ghandi wouldn't have been as effective against the British Raj (who could and did kill indiscriminately). If you were talking about private speech (not threats), I would have some more understanding.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US). I mean there was the whole civil war thing… If a movement has millions of people, possibility of violence is implied if you piss then off enough.
  - kurthr 2y ago
    Agreed, but the US Civil war wasn't started over mean tweets or nasty letters. There were armies and battlefields. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States wasn't threatening individual lives, but simply said that some states need not respect the federal union. Also, that threat of violence didn't lead to the success of the Confederacy, but to its destruction.
- cokeandpepsi 2y ago
  [dead]
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > I don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US) I can think of 2. The end of the reconstruction period (slash-start-of-Jim-Crow) was brought about by violence (and threats of violence). The newly-formed KKK and fellow travellers successfully used lynchings to deter the formerly enslaved from participating in the political process (as candidates and voters), which was the status quo. The Stonewall riots were were a another one - I'm certain there are more examples in between those 2.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    > end of the reconstruction period To be fair civil rights and relative racial equality was imposed by an (effectively) foreign army of occupation. That army leaving is what led to Jim Crow, there was hardly any meaningful bottom-top societal change since the local Republican governments could have never survived without significant external support anyway. KKK/etc. were effectively an unofficial enforcement branch / citizen militia of the local elites and state governments. IMHO the situation was a bit like the war in Afghanistan (just with a slightly narrower cultural gap). Women rights could only survive as long as the US/NATO force were there to impose them and they reverted to the status quo as soon as the foreign militaries left.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  The only reason you have a 40 hour workday are due to constant rioting and unrest. these strikes weren't just unhappy people with picket signs, they literally "called in the Pinkertons" to beat them into submission, and most of the strikes going back to the 1800s had some component of violence. Apropos of the date, the Pullman Strikes are the reason we have Labor Day as a national holiday. 70 people died during that strike and around 60 more were seriously wounded. Violence was common during strikes in the 1800s, but Pullman was especially chaotic -- but par for the course as global labor struggles went.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 2y ago
>In our history, the credible threat of social violence has been absolutely necessary for justice & progress Even in very similar Anglosphere cultures like Britain, a liberal constitutional monarchy, all of that had been achieved, even earlier in many cases, without the overt glorification of violence as a normal part of the political process. In fact liberal monarchies, even before they were democratic had done a pretty good job of delivering steady progress without being dogmatic on speech or even justifying violent revolution. Just assuming for a second we agree on a broad notion of progress if you draw the US on a graph next to her a little bit less rebellious peers I don't think it's that clear that the violence was necessary.
- LAC-Tech 2y ago
  The English civil war wasn't violent to you? even the glorious revolution was very violent by modern standards. not to mention the following jacobite "rebellions".
  - hollerith 2y ago
    You mean the glorious revolution that is also called the Bloodless Revolution?
    - defrost 2y ago
      The deposition of James II and VII (same person, different kingdoms) in November 1688 was a singular event that followed the wider 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which included The English Civil War (a series of civil wars and political machinations from 1642 to 1651) A singular action with no bloodshed that followed a period in which bodies were stacked high, including over a hundred thousand non combat civilians. A singular action with no bloodshed that sparked a long series of bloody revolts that began in March 1689, with major outbreaks in 1715 and 1719, and culminated in the Jacobite rising of 1745. Yes - he did mention the day James was deposed, you ignored the rest of century that surrounded that day.
      - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by mapt 2y ago

kurthr 2y ago

I don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US). Whether it was suffrage or labor rights, the greatest power for violence was always with the status quo and not with those protesting. Often violence has brought about change in perception opposite to its intent. This was true in civil rights, gay rights, antiwar, and labor movements. So I disagree that prohibition of violent public speech is an aspirational privilege otherwise necessary for justice and progress. A terrorist Ghandi wouldn't have been as effective against the British Raj (who could and did kill indiscriminately). If you were talking about private speech (not threats), I would have some more understanding.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US). I mean there was the whole civil war thing… If a movement has millions of people, possibility of violence is implied if you piss then off enough.
- kurthr 2y ago
  Agreed, but the US Civil war wasn't started over mean tweets or nasty letters. There were armies and battlefields. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States wasn't threatening individual lives, but simply said that some states need not respect the federal union. Also, that threat of violence didn't lead to the success of the Confederacy, but to its destruction.
cokeandpepsi 2y ago
[dead]
sangnoir 2y ago
> I don't remember the effective social movements and resulting changes in society you describe coming from threats of violence (in the US) I can think of 2. The end of the reconstruction period (slash-start-of-Jim-Crow) was brought about by violence (and threats of violence). The newly-formed KKK and fellow travellers successfully used lynchings to deter the formerly enslaved from participating in the political process (as candidates and voters), which was the status quo. The Stonewall riots were were a another one - I'm certain there are more examples in between those 2.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  > end of the reconstruction period To be fair civil rights and relative racial equality was imposed by an (effectively) foreign army of occupation. That army leaving is what led to Jim Crow, there was hardly any meaningful bottom-top societal change since the local Republican governments could have never survived without significant external support anyway. KKK/etc. were effectively an unofficial enforcement branch / citizen militia of the local elites and state governments. IMHO the situation was a bit like the war in Afghanistan (just with a slightly narrower cultural gap). Women rights could only survive as long as the US/NATO force were there to impose them and they reverted to the status quo as soon as the foreign militaries left.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
The only reason you have a 40 hour workday are due to constant rioting and unrest. these strikes weren't just unhappy people with picket signs, they literally "called in the Pinkertons" to beat them into submission, and most of the strikes going back to the 1800s had some component of violence. Apropos of the date, the Pullman Strikes are the reason we have Labor Day as a national holiday. 70 people died during that strike and around 60 more were seriously wounded. Violence was common during strikes in the 1800s, but Pullman was especially chaotic -- but par for the course as global labor struggles went.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 2y ago

>In our history, the credible threat of social violence has been absolutely necessary for justice & progress Even in very similar Anglosphere cultures like Britain, a liberal constitutional monarchy, all of that had been achieved, even earlier in many cases, without the overt glorification of violence as a normal part of the political process. In fact liberal monarchies, even before they were democratic had done a pretty good job of delivering steady progress without being dogmatic on speech or even justifying violent revolution. Just assuming for a second we agree on a broad notion of progress if you draw the US on a graph next to her a little bit less rebellious peers I don't think it's that clear that the violence was necessary.

LAC-Tech 2y ago
The English civil war wasn't violent to you? even the glorious revolution was very violent by modern standards. not to mention the following jacobite "rebellions".
- hollerith 2y ago
  You mean the glorious revolution that is also called the Bloodless Revolution?
  - defrost 2y ago
    The deposition of James II and VII (same person, different kingdoms) in November 1688 was a singular event that followed the wider 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which included The English Civil War (a series of civil wars and political machinations from 1642 to 1651) A singular action with no bloodshed that followed a period in which bodies were stacked high, including over a hundred thousand non combat civilians. A singular action with no bloodshed that sparked a long series of bloody revolts that began in March 1689, with major outbreaks in 1715 and 1719, and culminated in the Jacobite rising of 1745. Yes - he did mention the day James was deposed, you ignored the rest of century that surrounded that day.
    - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]