5 ms·

"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything. It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence

"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything. It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.

Lerc 1y ago
It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people. One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    Only if armed and organized
  - greedo 1y ago
    That would be much larger than a "small" force. In the US that would approach the size of the active duty Army.
zdragnar 1y ago
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare? Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant. > It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
- elcritch 1y ago
  Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
  - krapp 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.
      - krapp 1y ago
        The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence. Spend ten seconds around American gun culture. American gun owners absolutely believe the second amendment justifies violence, and Americans have believed as much for two centuries. Hell Thomas Jefferson thought any healthy democracy should have an uprising every 20 years or so. That it happens to be illegal to shoot people under most circumstances is merely a formality. The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system, as a counterbalance to the potential violence of the state, because they inherently mistrusted the state. The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia." Then again, the constitution was written when drawing and quartering was still practiced, along with slavery, and before the industrial revolution. Maybe the intent of the founding fathers as regards the second amendment no longer has a place in modern society. Unfortunately it can't be touched without triggering a full scale civil war so we're stuck with it and its consequences.
        zdragnar 1y ago
joecool1029 1y ago
> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular. Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Reactions_to_state_funeral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
  - vkou 1y ago
    His public image took a nosedive after his death. I think that had far more to do with it than saving a few yen.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt. Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous. https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html
ipython 1y ago
If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)
cryptonector 1y ago
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. That incites violence. Thinking we're oppressed when we're living lives that are immensely better than that of any oppressor of the past... We must stop that.
toughquestion 1y ago
[dead]

Lerc 1y ago

It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people. One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.

Aeolun 1y ago
Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
- collingreen 1y ago
  Only if armed and organized
- greedo 1y ago
  That would be much larger than a "small" force. In the US that would approach the size of the active duty Army.

zdragnar 1y ago

Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare? Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant. > It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.

elcritch 1y ago
Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
- krapp 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.
    - krapp 1y ago
      The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence. Spend ten seconds around American gun culture. American gun owners absolutely believe the second amendment justifies violence, and Americans have believed as much for two centuries. Hell Thomas Jefferson thought any healthy democracy should have an uprising every 20 years or so. That it happens to be illegal to shoot people under most circumstances is merely a formality. The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system, as a counterbalance to the potential violence of the state, because they inherently mistrusted the state. The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia." Then again, the constitution was written when drawing and quartering was still practiced, along with slavery, and before the industrial revolution. Maybe the intent of the founding fathers as regards the second amendment no longer has a place in modern society. Unfortunately it can't be touched without triggering a full scale civil war so we're stuck with it and its consequences.
      - zdragnar 1y ago

joecool1029 1y ago

> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular. Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Reactions_to_state_funeral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...

soraminazuki 1y ago
Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
- vkou 1y ago
  His public image took a nosedive after his death. I think that had far more to do with it than saving a few yen.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt. Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous. https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html

ipython 1y ago

If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)

cryptonector 1y ago

> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. That incites violence. Thinking we're oppressed when we're living lives that are immensely better than that of any oppressor of the past... We must stop that.

toughquestion 1y ago

[dead]