I think it's pretty clear that the parent is accusing the state of using torture to coerce compliance, which is a strong indication that the state itself is no longer legitimate.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that people oppose all state violence. Many people approve of some state violence in the name of maintaining societal order, but oppose torture. And I would posit that coercive incarceration is a form of torture.
It is a mistake to believe that people are ideologically consistent. And I would be hard pressed to believe that torture is not more extreme or less legitimate than other forms of violence.
Thank you. That pretty much sums up what I was getting at. I understand the need for violence when one man attacks me or my family. And I understand the need for violence when one man attacks any human around me.
These people break the Golden Rule and remove themselves from its binding contract of being treated equally. BUT, they still deserve to be treated fairly.
Sometimes, even you can get them to see the error of their ways, and use their past to create a better future for others, and all without violence. But asking someone to give you a variable to a mathematical algorithm that he owns is absolute horse shit.
This is just a very abstract way to say that you don't like some of the things that the state has characterized as crimes. That's fine, and you can utilize the organs of representative democracy to make your will on that point known (though a world where only violent crimes are recognized, like you're suggesting, is not usually considered appealing).
However, attempting to trivialize the issue by abstracting it out to "giving a variable to a mathematical algorithm" is not persuasive. Any sort of cooperation could be extrapolated to a similar point of abstraction that makes it sound absurd; in fact, furnishing a physical key to a physical lock could be described with no modification to your terms. In that case, you're ultimately asking for the pattern needed to actuate the pins such that they stick up in the lock mechanism and cause it to disengage. That's just "providing a variable to an algorithm"; the physical key itself is an implementation detail.
If you do not believe the court should have the power to compel some types of individual cooperation with the police, you should take that up with your local legislator. The Fifth Amendment itself provides no such protection. It prohibits the government's usage of only a very specific tactic: mandatory testimonial self-incrimination. Allowing the police to execute warrants and complying with lawful orders pursuant to the state's interest in enforcing its laws is not testimony.
I'm sorry, but I didn't conduct any sort of ideological flame war. I simply stated my stance on the issue that the thread was about. Other commenters took up the mantle of twisting my words and forcing me to more clearly explain myself.
I didn't realize "gtfo" was too uncivil for HN. I generally do not use such language here, but...
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
I did not break that rule. I was not gratuitous about it and was trying to end an argument.
I understand that you think you know what this site is for, but my original comment was in line with the subject matter and was not flamewar bait.
And while I'm sure he does a fine job, I'm contesting his assessment of my motivations and insinuating that I broke any rule. You really like to drag things out. Why don't you just drop it?
>I am stating my views on state violence, and what power the state should have over others. And the state should never use violence, physical or psychological, to "compel" people to do anything.
This allows only for crimes of commission. Crimes of omission, like negligence, failure to pay taxes, etc., could not be prosecuted against this, because the state would be using its monopoly on violence to compel compliance with laws which impose affirmative requirements on individuals instead of merely enforcing laws that proscribe individual behavior.
Are you arguing only against indefinite detention on contempt charges or are you arguing against deploying state force to compel any type of active compliance?
>If they are a danger to society, then they can be locked away, but if they are not provably a danger to society in an uncompromised court of law, then that's it. Indefinite incarceration without legitimate reason is torture.
This isn't indefinite detention without reason. Habaes corpus is fully satisfied here. The government has given the detainee a rationale for his detention and, in this case, they've provided a remedy that he can employ to end his incarceration at will.
For the third time, I believe that the virtues of indefinite detention via contempt-of-court are dubious and that reforms are welcome. I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with here.
>Are you telling me if I have a problem with the way my state is run I should call my local Republican state representatives and not discuss my views on a mature open forum? Gtfo with that shit, this isn't your forum my dude.
Expressing your views to your state representative (not sure why the party of that representative is significant) is not mutually exclusive with expressing your views on HN. I was suggesting an option by which you could attempt to enact your views in order to clarify that those views do not reflect the current state of the law and would need legislative action to be realized. That has nothing to do with where you're allowed to express them.
If a citizen does not want to pay taxes, and if the taxes are fair and used efficiently, then they still should not be compelled but they can be denied all government aid as well as access to certain infrastructure, or possibly even deportation. None of these things compel someone to do anything.
If the person wants to live on their own, in the wild, then there is no reason our government needs to collect taxes from them. But do I believe someone should be jailed for not giving our country money annually to be spent on things they don't support? Absolutely not. I don't even agree with sales tax. Traditionally that tax is paid for by vendors, but in modern times it has been passed on to the consumer.
And this "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" mentality most folks have about things like taxes is something an abusive partner would say. Sometimes people can't feasibly go somewhere more in line with their beliefs, but they still choose to live peacefully on their own terms.
And believe me, I have attempted to communicate with my representatives and it is fruitless and now I receive spam mail I can't seem to get rid of. Even when I get direct responses, they are empty and simply say, "I get you feel this way, but this is how I feel."
It sounds like you believe the only legitimate state is one where a criminal suspect can say "no thanks" and walk away in response to a court summons or arrest warrant. What brings anyone to walk into a courtroom to face charges at all, other than the knowledge that they will be tied to a chair and wheeled in if they refuse?
Of course the state uses violence to extract compliance with social norms. That's what it's for. The much more interesting questions are about which norms it should enforce (criminal codes) using how much force (sentencing, prison conditions, police rules of engagement, etc) and subject to what controls (due process, civil rights, etc).
Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.
The problem with this argument is that everybody can be called a Nazi. The only people who're using the word "Nazi" to describe "Breitbart" seriously are those who completely disrespect the millions of actual victims of the Nazi regime.
OK, so I would and have made the argument that brietbart is Nazism rebranded, since identifying as a Nazi is unacceptable these days (but decreasingly so it would seem).
However, there are far more clear examples of Nazis, like Richard Spencer, who writes pieces on the best way to genocide the black race and things like that. You do a disservice to the people they are harming by refusing to acknowledge that actual Nazis exist, are recently emboldened, and are gaining state power in some cases.
Crazy people can be as crazy as they want, as long as they don't harm others. But restricting the freedom of speech is a slipery slope that I want to avoid for all costs, lest people that are not Nazis start being called Nazis and are silenced.
This [1] is an article about what real Nazis are like Ipossibly simlar to Spencer, but definitely not similar to Trump).
Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them."
A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.
No but I don't think they should be legally required to process payments if they don't want to. I found other payment methods where I could though and did what little I could to oppose that decision.
Is this a serious question? It should be evident why it's okay to ostracize an ideology founded on the belief in genocide of "lesser" people. While some interpretations of Islam lead to violence, the same can be said about probably any religion, and Islam is not foundationally rooted in violence.
If you legitimately can't tell the difference between a genocidal ideology and a religion then I cannot continue this conversation.
Islam (like any religion) is based on the idea that this religion is better than any other religion (or belief system, like atheism). Nazism is based on the idea that being white/Aryan is better than others.
If this is true for any religion, as you claim, then why the inordinate focus on Islam? It seems like bigotry against Muslims is the most likely explanation.
Also claims of being the "one true religion" no not inherently incite genocide, whereas Nazism does.
In principle, it's the same for any religion - I don't think that discrimination on the basis of religion is any different from discrimination on the basis of any opinion (not that Jewish can be an ethnicity as well as religion). However, religions such as Judaism and Christianity don't punish heretism with death, and in general their proponents seem to be much less radicalized than many of the proponents of Islam (there are exceptions, of course - e.g. Mormons or Hasidic Jews). I'd guess Christianity was also similar before enlightenment, and sometimes even after it!
Given the source of this release, I am incredulous, and suspect that the internal disagreements referenced were more akin to bikeshedding or perhaps just entirely fabricated for the purpose of political ax-grinding.
/r/antifa is run by neo-nazi squatters who want to make antifa look bad. They probably should be shut down, and there are other places actual activists organize.
Not to get too far into it, but it's hard to make antifa look any worse than they actually are. A bunch of cowardly, destructive, eyes-shut communist nincompoops parading around in crowds because they are too timid to stand alone for their indefensibly stupid beliefs; that is, if they're not just there to fit in.
I don't think you have to be a neo-nazi to appreciate how pathetic and sad antifa are. I do not think you have to be a neo-nazi to have a knowing laugh about the thumb-sucking intellectual fragility they represent.
Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place.
If 80% of people don't care then that's even more reason to have these discussions. There is no excuse for disengagement at a time like this. Disinterest and silence are allies of oppression.
How exactly is watching one group of people call another group racists over and over going to help someone engage? Particularly if they are a citizen of Hong Kong?
Trump guys are, have been, and always will be complicit in the pain, suffering, and death we are visiting on people. I will never forgive them for this.
