
In 2020, Words Are 'Violence,' Arson Is Not - fortran77
https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-is-violence-george-floyd-protests-arson-is-not/
======
JoeAltmaier
I'm worried about this 'silence is violence' meme. Its seems a thinly
disguised 'if you aren't for us, you're against us' which is fairly infantile
thinking.

I know its intended to incite action, which is certainly overdue. But it has
its downside too, mainly that it alienates folks.

~~~
vanderZwan
Not really. It's not about being "against" anyone, it's about pretending to
not have any responsibility while taking part in a structurally racist system.

A lot of white people claim to be anti-racists but are unwilling to actually
act on it, including the most basic step of speaking up when they see it
happen, or acknowledging the existence of structural racism. In other words,
their claim is more performative and about convincing themselves and others
that they are Good People, than actually being interested in challenging a
status quo that obviously wrongs a lot of people.

This is also known as being an "enabler" \- that is, allowing others to do
wrong by looking the other way.

"Silence is violence" merely calls this out. It reminds us that we are
enablers of this violence if we remain silent.

The vast majority of defensiveness I see in response to this pretty much just
boils down to worrying about one's own position of being seen as a Good Person
(by themselves and by others), instead of worrying about what is actually the
right thing to do.

~~~
zozbot234
If the actual issue is that the system is "structurally" racist, why do we
even care about blaming people for their silence, or lack thereof? Isn't it a
basic starting point of performing a proper "structural" or "root-cause" based
analysis of a problematic system, that one should _avoid_ preemptively
assigning blame? You really can't have it both ways, this whole way of
thinking makes zero sense.

~~~
yoav
It’s a system of people. So obviously the “root-cause analysis” would only
happen if the problem wasn’t an accepted part of society. Why would anyone
seek to solve a problem that no one cares about.

If half of the population (the people with power) directly benefits from an
unjust system, but says nothing about it, it will never be addressed.

There is a conflict of interest.

How can you benefit from an injustice, stay silent, and still just passively
hope it will get fixed? Hundreds of years in isn’t proof enough that sitting
around hoping someone else fixes it doesn’t work?

~~~
bE9a3S5So8igd3
> half of the population (the people with power) directly benefits from an
> unjust system...

Fix what? Slavery (including the enslavement of whites) is not legal, at least
not in the US. Everything is de-segregated and we have laws to protect certain
classes of minorities. Beyond legalities I see black-promotion constantly in
media. Everything looks perfectly fine from my perspective (I could do without
the propaganda though). As a reminder our last president was (half) black.

You're imagining that the US is not beneficial historically to everyone.
There's a reason people from Europe, Asia, latin america, etc. immigrated to
America. They didn't come because "America is only benefits white slave-
owners!" The entire point of the "american dream" is that people without power
can find a way to prosper. Are we supposed to pretend none of that ever
happened?

So what is this injustice du jour that suddenly, over the last few weeks, has
become so pressing? Policing? I don't think there's evidence to support that
blacks are targetted by cops because they're black. Poor neighborhoods
probably do require more policing than non-poor neighborhoods as, naturally,
criminal activity is more prevalent amongst the poor. Relative to other
minorities my understanding is that blacks are underperforming in various
ways. Surely you can't be so easily deluded into believing statements like
"our black kids are being killed by cops every minute!" More whites are killed
by cops. Blacks are overrepresented in proportion to their population. That
blacks are overrepresented in certain figures does not support a radical claim
like "systemic racism," contrary to Twitter logic.

Is it some other "injustice" you're so worked up about? Is it some imaginary
injustice that is not even possible to resolve? Why don't you be specific
about your radical claims; your statements are empty Twitter platitudes as far
as I'm concerned.

Frankly, I resent the implication that I, as a white, am somehow benefiting
from "injustice."

~~~
zozbot234
The criminal justice system needs a _lot_ of fixing. The rate of incarceration
and criminalization is insane in a Western context, and does _not_ actually
help community safety. This is something that there's broad consensus about
among social scientists.

------
Shivetya
Heckler's Veto[0] in another form but the results are the same, silence
differing opinion but now you have an excuse to commit violence against those
who hold it or have others act on your behalf; this can include using
government or employers.

A very dangerous period we are entering when honest open debate is framed as
anything such. We are walking right into it and worse many are find excuses
for specific discussion points as warranting this behavior not fully
understanding that once that genie is out of the bottle it may take a
generation or more to put it back.

The worst of it is that it is happening in newsrooms where groups want stories
written specific ways and certain opinions must be silenced at all cost.

This "moral majority" will go far beyond what many fear mongers thought a
"religious right" could ever do because they do not inherent limits to the
exercise of their authority or violence needed to administer it.

You pretty much are bound for an authoritarian regime because democracy does
not survive in silence. Will we have our own Reichstag fire[1], what form
would it take?

Pretty sure you can find quite a few examples

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto)
[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)

------
msandford
> insisting that both parties honor legally binding contracts is violence;

I'm generally a pretty big believer in upholding the law and contracts but a
lot of people have been put out of work through no fault of their own, and
rather unwillingly. The government did that and I think it makes sense for the
government to enforce at least a temporary moratorium on evictions so that
things can be done in an orderly fashion.

------
trabant00
I find it weird the article didn't mention the violence - violence during the
protests. I mean several people got killed, I imagine quite a lot got beaten
up.

------
mdszy
I don't see how this is on-topic in the slightest, nor how this could lead to
any form of useful discussion on this site.

Regardless, if you agree with the article wholeheartedly, maybe stop to
consider why you're getting more worked up over destruction of some property
than over the decades-long oppression of black, hispanic and other minority
communities by the police.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I think there's a discussion worth having on the increasing trend towards
argument by analogy, where we judge things as good or bad based not on a
concrete analysis of their effects but whether we can attach a label like
"violence" to them. It's obviously prone to dragging people into political
slapfights (which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!), but I don't
know if that should be a disqualifier; a lot of important topics have that
quality.

~~~
mdszy
> which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!

There is nothing in my comment that indicates that I'm looking to engage in a
"political slapfight" \- that's entirely your deal.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I have no interest in engaging myself, but I encourage you to reread the last
line of your comment and consider how it comes across to people who don't
agree with your perspective.

~~~
mdszy
So you're saying that you think that some property is more important than
murders of innocent people by police that have been going on for decades?

If that's not what you're saying, you should make yourself clear. Because you
imply that you don't agree with my perspective, which I think is pretty
straightforward and clear - people are more important than property.

~~~
blotter_paper
I, for one, both agree with your perspective _and_ see how the last sentence
of your original comment could be taken as engaging in a "political slapfight"
(a pretty vague term) when viewed from the other side. I think being able to
view the world from the eyes of the other is a useful skill, even when the
other is a literal fascist -- I'm not even arguing that you should necessarily
come across differently, just that you should understand how you may come
across to people with different perspectives.

~~~
diffrinse
Or, put another way, you can't say one side's behavior is historically
determined but not the other's.

~~~
blotter_paper
While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ
greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way
of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.

~~~
diffrinse
Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point
was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you
account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product
of history

~~~
blotter_paper
No prob, but if mdszy reads this I want to explicitly note that this is not
meant as a caricature of their statement, I'm just trying to distill my
meaning down into the most simple terms I can muster.

Alice buys a status symbol instead of donating to a charity. Bob says "Alice,
stop and think about whether you care more about status symbols than
charities!" Even if I agree with Bob's implicit condemnation, I can still see
how Alice would feel attacked by the wording. Perhaps Bob wants Alice to feel
attacked (this could be an attempt to jar Alice into recognizing her own
greed), but it does Bob no good to not understand how he might be perceived by
Alice. If Bob understands how he will be perceived then he will be able to
craft his message in more useful ways -- ways that I would expect to be
significantly friendlier on average, but which may sometimes actually be more
combative. Ignorance of the perspectives of others does the message writer no
good.

I also feel like I agree with your point, which is significantly more
empathetic and less realpolitik than mine.

------
deleuze
wow, it's almost like people are more important than property.

~~~
mdszy
Exactly. When I read,

"two main arguments: damaging a person is morally more serious than damaging
an object, and psychologically damaging a person is worse than physically
damaging an object."

I couldn't help but think "Yes? That's exactly correct. Who would ever think
otherwise?"

~~~
naasking
So giving someone a paper cut is worse than burning down someone's store in
which their life savings were invested? Come on, these issues aren't covered
by such trivial sound bites.

~~~
happytoexplain
You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't
expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they
express. The article, and the parent post, both do not equate such a contrived
minor injury to destroying an entire business, and you absolutely know this.

~~~
naasking
> You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't
> expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they
> express.

The position, as stated, is literally false which my argument by absurdity
demonstrates. So what I expect, is that people attempt to make true
statements, and where the truth value is contextual, then their phrasing also
ought to reflect that nuance, ie. damaging a person is _typically_ morally
more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is
_typically_ worse than physically damaging an object.

There are no qualifiers in the original claim to reflect this nuance, and like
it or not, people _absolutely do_ believe unqalified claims until they are
challenged on it. Why do you think slogans and propaganda are so effective.

------
raziel2p
Is it stupid to equate a replacing the word "sex" with "gender identity" with
being punched in the face? Yes.

Is it stupid to equate police brutality with riots destroying corporate
property? Also yes, though maybe arguably less so.

I don't think this is anything new though, I remember being in debates with
libertarians 10-15 years ago who argued that tax is violence. If you want to
get philosophical about it, anything that carries any intent or threat to harm
if there's non-compliance can be violence, but at that point it becomes kind
of a useless word.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Why is this post flagged? The article discusses a very real problem that is
creeping into all aspects of our lives, inlcuding software development. Why
can't we have a civilized discussion about it?

------
shadowphex
Why are we posting things that come from explicitly biased political websites
that have nothing to do with tech? I can understand it if is breaking news,
but this is an opinion piece.

I have noticed more political opinion pieces posted here recently. Did the
scope of this website change in the past few months?

~~~
lollerka
Do you post this under every NYT article too?

If NYT is allowed then so should be this

~~~
shadowphex
No, but my comment is in reference to those posts. But what makes this one
especially egregious is that Reason has not pretenses about being an objective
new source.

The first line of their about page is: "Founded in 1968, Reason is the
nation's leading libertarian magazine."

~~~
swalsh
OP has a point. The NY Times recently began a process of shedding their ideals
of objectivity too. They claim the views and inclinations of whiteness are
accepted as the objective neutral.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/objectivity-
black...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/objectivity-black-
journalists-coronavirus.html)

~~~
shadowphex
I agree that NYT has a bias. But they at least _try_ to appear objective (or
at least objective with a left leaning slant). The article you linked is an
opinion piece by a NYT writer and not the official stance of NYT (as far as I
know).

Also, I am not fighting for NYT articles here. I wish that there would be no
opinion pieces that are not tech related. This post just seemed particularly
egregious because it is an opinion piece from a new outlet that is openly and
explicitly biased.

------
blotter_paper
Without conceding that this topic should be our main focus right now I feel
like we should draw a clear distinction between, say, local businesses on one
extreme and police precinct buildings on the other. I see voices on the right,
such as this article, invoking the destruction black-owned businesses as their
examples of property damage and I can't help but feel like they tactically
know this is more likely to draw a reaction than the destruction of buildings
that belong to racist government institutions -- the American right wasn't too
concerned when the KKK (a precursor to many southern police departments)
burned down black businesses, churches, and homes. I can totally agree that
the destruction of local businesses is a shame, but I'm not really worried
about the big boxerinos and I'm downright ecstatic about police stations going
up in flames.

~~~
mdszy
I've also never seen a source for the claim of black-owned businesses being
destroyed during these riots, I've begun to believe it's just intentional
misinformation.

~~~
derision
Is it that far-fetched to you that with the number of black-owned businesses
there are and the number of businesses that were destroyed, that at least one
of them would have been destroyed in the riots? I personally know of a black-
owned business in Cleveland that had to shut down after being looted. Either
you're underestimating the number of black-owned businesses, the number of
destroyed businesses, both, or are simply being disingenuous

