I think they are perfectly right. People have the right to disagree to the bad political opinions of the owner of a free software, and they're free to fork it.
Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.
They are. They didn't fork it though. They just banned a bunch of people from their Discord server, tried to bully people on social media and wrote a README file.
> usually it is OK for a private citizen to use violence to stop violence
Usually, it is okay for a private citizen to use physical violence to stop physical violence. It is (presumably) internally consistent for someone to answer your question negatively while still believing that racism is violence.
“Racism” is not violence. Words are not violence. This kind of discourse is disgusting and only encourages people to physically attack others over words.
> Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence
You probably cannot read:
Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds]
Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence:
a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;
Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.
Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence!
That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true?
Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech.
Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
If you just understand that reaction to violence is other violence, it's not my fault, it's a limit you have. Reaction to violence can be nonviolent protest. Strikes. Discussion. All the things you probably don't like.
DHH can be racist as long as he wants, but he will face nonviolent consequences for what he says. Also legal ones, if what he says is not permitted in the country he lives in.
So, if he links his software stuff, to his political views, sorry, but I will try and engage people to either disjoint the two, or boycott his software.
Sure, but they are the way the people have voted for, and they have not been amended because people thought they were ok. That's democracy, the system you live in. If you're not democratic and you want to sabotage that, you might face the police. I do believe this law is right. And many people do so, and defend it.
>Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence
This is a total fallacy. You can react with disagreement, that can be non-violent.
This is the mind of a violent person who thinks that the only reaction to violence is more violence. It's not like that. You choose yourself and take accountability for how you react.
You continue to reply to yourself, double post, etc. I’m not going to follow this mess any longer.
The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking.
And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.
> The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat.
No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm.
And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
You should look up the definitions of the word «violence».
You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition.
Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
> Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean:
> Extreme or powerful emotion or expression.
> Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness.
> Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
> Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.
> an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)
Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
From each except the first:
- «force, assault»
- «action»
- «an act of aggression»
Which stands in contrast to «speech».
Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force).
I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression»
Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.)
> what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force
Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal.
There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical.
> I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech».
On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
I am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences.
There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?
The fact that the Wikipedia page on «verbal abuse» has to use «verbal» as a prefix term to the terms «abuse», «violence», «assault» etc. actually underscores the point: If those terms were obviously verbal in nature, then «verbal» wouldn’t have been needed as a prefix to them.
Nope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical.
> Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
Why would you even need to say «call for violence» if speech were violence in itself?
No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.
Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility.
In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law.
Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something).
All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.
I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can make a firm distinction between words and violence. To me, the judge's "job" you mention is part of that.
This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.
This is an example of how the violence of speech is often minimized and dismissed. Causing hurt feelings is violence, particularly doing so intentionally.
"Speech" does not oppose "action".
I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world.
Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today.
Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
Looks like there's a limit in the level of the replies, so I was going flat. And I addressed your point. It's not like you deserve this, but at least people will see that someone counteracts nonsense arguments like yours.
Racism is violence, and peaceful reaction to violence is disagreement, "agitation" as you call it.