4 ms·

> Laws can be wrong. Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy

> Laws can be wrong. Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy, the system you live in. If you're not democratic and you want to sabotage that, you might face the police. I do believe this law is right. And many people do so, and defend it. >Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence This is a total fallacy. You can react with disagreement, that can be non-violent. This is the mind of a violent person who thinks that the only reaction to violence is more violence. It's not like that. You choose yourself and take accountability for how you react.

ilikehurdles 1y ago
You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer. The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking. And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  > The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm. And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
  - redbar0n 1y ago
    You should look up the definitions of the word «violence». You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition. Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force». Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean: > Extreme or powerful emotion or expression. > Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness. > Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault. > Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. > an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists) Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
      - redbar0n 1y ago
        From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force). I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
        lordkrandel 1y ago
        "Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

ilikehurdles 1y ago

You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer. The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking. And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.

lordkrandel 1y ago
> The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm. And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
- redbar0n 1y ago
  You should look up the definitions of the word «violence». You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition. Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force». Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean: > Extreme or powerful emotion or expression. > Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness. > Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault. > Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. > an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists) Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
    - redbar0n 1y ago
      From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force). I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
      - lordkrandel 1y ago
        "Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago