6 ms·
That’s a scary broad definition of “violence” you got there.
by skrebbel 1y ago
That’s a scary broad definition of “violence” you got there.
- noir_lord 1y agoYes and then again no - Given the Germans history (Nazi's then decades of the Stasi) you can understand why some of them feel that way.
- halJordan 1y agoEven then, i could see how the stasi police state was an act of violence against individual citizens (which i doubt is an argument you should take for granted), but even granting that- this chat control isnt it. You can't call everything you dislike or everything that is wrong nazi, stasi, or an act of violence.
- noir_lord 1y agoDepends on how you look at it, if you think people have an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on their privacy is a form of violence, not all violence is physical violence.
- evrydayhustling 1y agoOk, so you define violence to include advocating for a law that tramples someone rights. The next person says that advocating for laws is its own inalienable right, so you trampled him. And the whole semantic redefinition snake just eats its own tail. If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to push for a world where words mean something.
- varispeed 1y agoWords do mean something - which is exactly why “violence” already has recognised psychological and coercive forms in law and medicine. Pretending otherwise isn’t defending meaning, it’s narrowing it for comfort. People who’ve lived under regimes of fear understand that harm doesn’t need batons to leave marks. But sure, if the only kind of wound you acknowledge is one that bleeds, then the rest of us must be imagining things.
- Jensson 1y agoMost people just means physical violence when they say violence, if you use the word differently you will trick many people into thinking you say something you don't.
- varispeed 1y ago“Most people” once thought depression was laziness and marital rape was impossible. Appealing to what most people think isn’t clarity, it’s inertia. Language changes because our understanding of harm does. The fact that many still default to the physical doesn’t make the rest untrue - it just shows how far denial can pass for common sense.
- barry-cotter 1y agoAll violence is physical violence and any non-metaphorical attempt to define anything else as really violence is Orwellian.
- varispeed 1y agoThat would surprise every court that’s convicted someone of coercive control, stalking, or psychological abuse. None involved broken bones, yet all involved measurable harm and loss of agency.
- kbelder 1y agoI might include threat of violence in that definition. "Give me your money or I'll shoot you." But then that immediately opens the definition up to include all laws. "Obey this rule or we will imprison or kill you."
- varispeed 1y ago"Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds." It absolutely is violence. If a partner in a relationship was constantly going through your phone, they'd end up in prison in most countries recognising domestic violence.
- drysine 1y ago>If a partner in a relationship was constantly going through your phone, they'd end up in prison in most countries recognising domestic violence. that's disproportional
- tick_tock_tick 1y agoWouldn't you expect the opposite? This law basically read like what the Nazi's would implement to "legitimately" silence opposition.
- varispeed 1y agoNot really. A snippet I posted before: If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
- knollimar 1y agoIs this not affirming the consequent? Violence for A ends is Terrorism Intimidation for A ends is terrorism ∴ Intimidation for A ends is violence. <--- does not follow Does it serve a similar purpose? Sure. Is it a threat of violence? Sure, but words have meaning.
- varispeed 1y agoNo, that’s a misread. I’m not collapsing “intimidation” into “violence”. I’m pointing out that psychological and coercive violence are legally and medically recognised forms of harm. The distinction you’re making is rhetorical, not substantive. The state can’t redefine violence narrowly to exclude itself while criminal law already accepts non-physical violence as real. The argument is about consistency, not syllogisms.
- nandomrumber 1y agoGet your own words, we’re already using these ones. Violence is a category of harm. Definitions matter. If speech is violence then execution is a suitable punishment.
- jabbywocker 1y ago
- brendyn 1y agoLaws are enforced by violence. If you disobey, and refuse to pay fines eventually someone will break your door down and drag you out in handcuffs
- skrebbel 1y agoThis implies you can call any law you don't like "violent". That's ridiculous.
- cess11 1y agoNo, it's not. One important feature of the modern state is that it makes a claim to a monopoly on violence and institutionally back up its enforcement of its laws with this threat of violence.
- skrebbel 1y agoCome on, words have meaning. You can’t possibly claim that you honestly, truly believe that any law you don’t like is violent because in the end the state holds a monopoly on violence. That’s distorting the meaning of the word “violent” so far it becomes meaningless, and I shiver at the thought of a society where everybody who does something that waaaay down the line could somehow result in physical violence can be deemed a “terrorist”. It’s an absurd argument to make, and I’m not entirely sure why y’all are so enthusiastically for it. Don’t you see that this doesn’t only apply to laws you don’t like? Other people can call laws you do like “state terrorism” just as easily once you go down this path. This reflex to argue against bad ideas using bad faith attempts to totally distort reality (in this case, calling excessive state surveillance “terrorism”) has got to stop. Do you really believe that by so transparently trying to gaslight people, your case gets stronger? Stop making up bullshit terms and argue these laws on their own merits, or lack thereof. There’s plenty wrong with Chat Control without this kind of nonsense. It’s a terrible proposal. It’s not terrorism.
- cess11 1y agoThere are no such laws that I 'do like'. If you want to make the claim that there are laws that aren't backed up by state violence, in this case in Germany or elsewhere in the EU, name them and show that it is the case.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nandomrumber 1y agoThis very forum is moderated by a person who openly conflates words and violence. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452 All: if you can't respond in a non-violent way, please don't post until you can. By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer need to express it aggressively. I never felt irritated nor angry about Charlie’s public execution. Perplexed, definitely not surprised. But this statement from Dan had irritated me. Words aren’t violence. Speech won’t shoot you in the neck in front of your wife and stream it live. We have perfectly functioning terms for other concepts, we don’t need to Equality everything. When we do that nothing will mean anything, and we’ll soon find ourselves imprisoning or executing those we disagree with. Oops, too fucking late!
- p1dda 1y agoThis very forum is moderated by a person who openly conflates words and violence. Wow, that explains so much insanity from this otherwise excellent forum. "Respond in a non-violent way" is insane!
- adinisom 1y agoI read it as: Dan is a moderator on a forum and his goal is to maintain a level of civil discourse rather than an aggressive style of communication. It's a very specific definition of "violence" for a specific context and perhaps there's room for clearer terminology.
- skrebbel 1y agoI agree that this is weird, but in dang's defense, "non-violent communication" is a commonplace term, and has its roots in the nonviolent peace movement. Like there's entire books written about it etc. It's a terrible word choice, I agree wholeheartedly, but given how widespread a concept it is at this point I don't think you can blame people who use it for that. It's like, "WhatsApp" is a terrible app name but I don't cringe when my mum says its name. It's actually a pretty useful tool. I wish it was called "compassionate communication" or something like that though. Oh wow seems like the guy who invented it hates the term too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Alternative_names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Alter...