That’s a scary broad definition of “violence” you got there.
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.
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.
It’s like calling a father who tells his kid to help with the dishes “violent” because waay down the line in the most pathological broken situation imaginable the authority a parent wields over their child is backed up by violence and the ability to withhold basic necessities. It’s ridiculous, he didn’t beat his kid up, he said “come help do the dishes”.
You’re doing that, but with the state. It removes all nuance. Don’t do that, it hurts your argument.
I mean seriously your point boils down to “Chat Control is a law, and laws are backed by violence, and therefore it’s terrorism”. That means “don’t park on the sidewalk” is also terrorism! Why am I even arguing this? Gaah I so hope you’re just trolling me.
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!
Wow, that explains so much insanity from this otherwise excellent forum. "Respond in a non-violent way" is insane!
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.
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#Alter...
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.
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.
Violence is a category of harm.
Definitions matter.
If speech is violence then execution is a suitable punishment.
So your solution to this proposal of “terrorism” is to actually commit “terrorism”.
To have tyrannical government we only have to have governments who want to propose such legislation.
Any reasonable sort of government would be highlighting the absurdity of such ideas and speak out against them.
No amount of coercive control will nail you to a cross, or shoot you in the neck in front of your wife and a park full of students, because it disagrees with what you say.
Intimidation by making or implying threats of violence isn’t violence.
The reader assuming aggression in blunt words isn’t violence. Not using someone’s preferred pronouns is not violence.
Violence is violence.
People who want to conflate violence with non-violence want to impose their will on others. It’s a personality trait that lends itself to tyranny. You can’t legislate undesirable behaviour out of existence, but you can lock up those you disagree with, and you will enjoy it. You will say things like “ah well, we got what he deserved”.
Punishing people for things like coercive control does nothing to prevent the harm occurring in the first place, and threats of legal consequences rarely do much, if anything, to deter the unwanted activity.
We’re going to have to be more skilful in our thinking if we want people to Be Good and Live Right. I’m sure I’ve read and listen to people who had something more intelligent to say about how we are to live, but we keep fucking nailing them to crosses or shooting them in the fucking neck.
If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to push for a world where words mean something.
But then that immediately opens the definition up to include all laws. "Obey this rule or we will imprison or kill you."
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.
that's disproportional