3 ms·

> What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? Not referring to a status quo, but to the implication of the parent, and yours after the fact, that we

> What "state-sponsored violence" are you referring to? Not referring to a status quo, but to the implication of the parent, and yours after the fact, that we should consider mandating vaccines. > deadly communicable disease If you think this is the only thing on the US vaccination schedule, you should do a little research.

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today, so I'm not interested in engaging with sophistry about mandates that might hypothetically lead to violence at some unspecified point in the future. Rules are rules and violence is violence, they're not the same thing and I won't waste my time talking to people who can't see that.
- kryogen1c 8mo ago
  > The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today I dont know what youre talking about, I dont follow politics. And even if I did, I dont know what relevance that could have on our conversation. > I'm not interested in engaging [...] I won't waste my time talking Then I agree, commenting on a public forum is not the right place for you > Rules are rules and violence is violence Laws (not sure why you switched to taking about rules) are explicity - not implicitly - backed by state violence. Unsure where the confusion is.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    The confusion is that your statement is not true. Many laws, including school vaccine mandates, aren't backed by state violence. They don't require nor anticipate the deployment of state violence to enforce. They're just rules about how a certain program ought to be administered. Even for the laws which are "backed by" state violence in some deep theoretical sense, I think it's misleading to the point of nonsense to characterize them that way. When the government says "the speed limit on this stretch of the road is 65 miles per hour", they do not mean and the public does not understand them to mean "we will commit violence against anyone who drives 66 miles per hour". It would be ridiculous for driver who's stopped by police and gets a speeding ticket to claim that they've been subject to violence. To me, it seems clear that this kind of equivocation is an attempt to minimize the actual ongoing campaign of literal state violence by the Trump regime. I'll take you at your word that you're not familiar with that campaign, but please remember that the concept of "state violence" is inherently political. Talking about it implies a position on the actual state and how it actually deploys violence, whether you intend to or not.

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago

The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today, so I'm not interested in engaging with sophistry about mandates that might hypothetically lead to violence at some unspecified point in the future. Rules are rules and violence is violence, they're not the same thing and I won't waste my time talking to people who can't see that.

kryogen1c 8mo ago
> The Trump regime murdered a guy for protesting them today I dont know what youre talking about, I dont follow politics. And even if I did, I dont know what relevance that could have on our conversation. > I'm not interested in engaging [...] I won't waste my time talking Then I agree, commenting on a public forum is not the right place for you > Rules are rules and violence is violence Laws (not sure why you switched to taking about rules) are explicity - not implicitly - backed by state violence. Unsure where the confusion is.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  The confusion is that your statement is not true. Many laws, including school vaccine mandates, aren't backed by state violence. They don't require nor anticipate the deployment of state violence to enforce. They're just rules about how a certain program ought to be administered. Even for the laws which are "backed by" state violence in some deep theoretical sense, I think it's misleading to the point of nonsense to characterize them that way. When the government says "the speed limit on this stretch of the road is 65 miles per hour", they do not mean and the public does not understand them to mean "we will commit violence against anyone who drives 66 miles per hour". It would be ridiculous for driver who's stopped by police and gets a speeding ticket to claim that they've been subject to violence. To me, it seems clear that this kind of equivocation is an attempt to minimize the actual ongoing campaign of literal state violence by the Trump regime. I'll take you at your word that you're not familiar with that campaign, but please remember that the concept of "state violence" is inherently political. Talking about it implies a position on the actual state and how it actually deploys violence, whether you intend to or not.