Jiro
1d ago
If they're unmasked and you run into them attacking you at a stoplight, exactly how is seeing their faces going to help? Are you going to search their faces online, confirm that they're in some police database, and decide not to shoot them, all while they're attacking you?
Seeing their faces is useless until later, at which point you've already had to decide whether or not to shoot them.
Jiro
1d ago
Many of them are still alive and it wouldn't be difficult for the universities to disclaim them or revoke their honorary degrees. And 60 years ago is when they committed their crimes; being accepted by the establishment is more recent.
Same issue. This is not a heckler's veto because the hecklers don't want to prevent them from identifying themselves.
A hecklers veto encourages hecklers by responding to their disruption by doing things that they want to happen. Responding to hecklers by doing things that they don't want to happen doesn't have similar problems, and is not a heckler's veto.
By your reasoning, having the police arrest a criminal is a heckler's veto on not arresting.
Jiro
2d ago
It's not just the literal words, it's the surrounding context. If pro-lifers started talking about punching murderers, and calling people murderers, then calling people murderers would contribute to stochastic terrorism a lot more.
Also, calling them Nazis specifically is not a "legitimate moral belief" anyway. Pro-lifers think abortionists are literally murderers. Nobody thinks ICE agents are literally members of the Nazi party, and probably not even that they want to kill millions of people.
Jiro
2d ago
So there's a heckler's veto on good police procedure?
A hecklers veto has your heckler causing problems with X in order to prevent X. I don't think people opposed to ICE are trying to prevent ICE agents from exposing their faces.
Jiro
3d ago
One of my 2025 reading goals was to read more “normie” books, which basically entailed reading more books that my non-online friends recommended to me.
I am not convinced that any book in the scifi/fantasy genres should count as a normie book.
Jiro
3d ago
No shit, being arrested sucks. Being ticketed sucks. But, as you can imagine, that's part of the deterrent value. Why would it be pleasant?
Being arrested and being ticketed are not supposed to be deterrents at all. Actual deterrents are administered after a conviction.
Jiro
4d ago
You are being excessively literal. Can you link to some people actually saying such things, instead of paraphrasing them?
Jiro
4d ago
Nobody's been able to give me a compelling response to why we should accept what the Right is doing now
So exactly what explanations have you heard that you don't find compelling?
Some have tried to claim that the Right’s version of cancel culture is different in some vague way that makes these statements not hypocritical, e.g. it’s OK to cancel someone if they’re “celebrating the death” of someone, but I generally find these arguments unpersuasive.
Your whole post could have been reduced to just that single sentence. Of course if you're going to handwave the differences and not really address them, then there are no differences that matter. That's pretty much tautological!
That's also why you had to claim that initiating violence and responding with violence is a type of acceptable hypocrisy. If you said that it isn't hypocrisy, that would be because the two situations are different, even if they are both violence. If differences don't matter, the only choice is to put them in the same category and call it hypocrisy.
Jiro
5d ago
Mereological nihilists deny the existence of testicles because they deny the existence of compound physical objects in general... Eliminative materialists deny the existence of beliefs, so they would deny that anyone believes that they are a man or a woman....
... and mereological nihilists and eliminative materialists have negligible relevance to any actually existing argument about this subject. Certainly below the lizardman constant.
"I don't think you would get any disagreement on" doesn't mean "literally 0.0000 percent disagreement".
Jiro
7d ago
From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society.
I think you responded to the wrong post.
But anyway, it's not "did he do bad things" or "did he cause harm". Everyone thinks their political opponents do bad things! It's that he did things that are acceptable ways of spreading ideas in a democracy. Whether these things are harmful is irrelevant here.
US troops also were in full control of Japan
The point is that they could only do this because they were in full control. Israel cannot do this, because they don't have full control over Gaza.
if there's a sufficient amount of food going in to Gaza, food riots don't happen. Because, you know, people have enough food.
That doesn't follow. Food that goes into Gaza freely would just be taken by Hamas. Hamas would then offer it only to people who follow their orders, up to and including becoming suicide bombers so their family gets fed.
Jiro
7d ago
They wouldn't do it to spite Israel, they would do it because having control over the food supply means having control over the people.
Jiro
7d ago
Hamas has done plenty of things that are terrible optics already. The media just refuses to publicize them.
Even sending rockets into Israel was terrible optics, but Hamas got away with it.
Non-violent is overrated. Activists try to pretend that nonviolent is the same thing as nonharmful, and have invented very clever ways to harm people for a cause without being "violent".
Also, nonviolence harms everyone because a lot of nonviolence depends on taking advantage of other people's reluctance to use violence to prevent harm. That encourages violence in society and is a form of destroying the commons. It also involves media manipulation, which is a fancy word for lying (which is of course a nonviolent act).
Remember that debanking Covid protestors in Canada was an act of nonviolence. (Actually, so is debanking anyone.)
Jiro
7d ago
Charlie Kirk's actions that the left didn't like were speeches and political activism--the kind of things that we are supposed to accept as part of a free society even if we don't agree with them. Lenin, Mao, Joseph Rosenbaum, and George Floyd's actions that the right (or anyone) didn't like were not.
Jiro
7d ago
This doesn't help. There's no amount of food that Hamas can't realistically take. There's an amount that they can't realistically eat themselves, but they'd just take it and destroy the amount they can't eat.
Jiro
7d ago
US/British troops post-war were in full control of Germany, so they didn't have to deal with Nazis who would forcibly take the food when they tried distributing food to German civilians.
Jiro
8d ago
So what, the IDF machine-guns them to avoid crowd crushes???
What do you suggest the IDF do instead? Let them take all the food?
The takeaway for most is still that "my opposition deserves to die for their crimes" and it does endanger the target, just not as much as an unqualified call for violence.
"Does, but not as much" is a massive understatement. Someone who wants Joe Biden put on trial won't lead to anyone hurting Joe Biden. Someone who wants right-wingers to be assassinated increases the chance of people assassinating right-wingers. These things are significantly unalike to the point where putting them in the same category is sophistry.
And you seem to agree that Kirk "literally [advocated] for violence"?
Assuming that the Biden quote is correct, only in a noncentral way. If state violence counts, everyone on themotte has literally advocated for violence.
Jiro
9d ago
The difference is that a lone shooter has a chance of shooting Biden, but a lone shooter has no chance of putting Biden on trial for treason. Advocating state action is literally advocating for violence, but it's not advocating for the kind of violence that a vigilante can do, so it doesn't endanger the target in the same way.
Jiro
9d ago
Also there’s the fun phenomenon of GOP officials fearing right wing violence.
Your links are spin. They are deliberately mixing up fear of "retaliation" (meaning standard politician stuff), Internet death threats of the type every celebrity gets, genuine death threats that are not from right-wingers, and maybe something that actually qualifies but is cherry picked.
Jiro
9d ago
I occasionally donate to GiveDirectly because I believe in their premise: that the administrative efficiency of just distributing cash directly is so high that enabling the occasional bad behavior is outweighed by all the good behavior it promotes and bureaucratic behavior it avoids.
Widely distributing cash changes the incentives. Cash works precisely because giving it out is rare and thus people are not incentivized to behave badly in a way enabled by it.
Believing that abortion doctors are murderers is not a statement about their state of mind, it's a claim about how to characterize the actions that they are uncontroversially known as doing. In theory you could use "white supremacist" the same way, but that doesn't happen in practice; it pretty much always means attributing motives that you can't know or actions that they did not do.
"Controlling women's bodies" goes along with "white supremacist" and should be condemned for the same reason.
More options
Context Copy link