Surely your principles include responding to violence, even if they aren’t violent proactively. There must be situations where ‘being good to others’ means defending them against harm.
Undoubtedly, physical harm.
Presumably, reputational harm. If some fraud tries ruining a stranger’s life by lying to their friends, family, and associates, there are legal consequences for that, and state actions can prevent future attacks.
So what about threats of physical harm? Do they never count as indefensible damage? Can you say, with a straight face, they have no negative impact on their target? Some verbal abuse is different from being struck because bruises on the outside will heal.
We’re not talking about silencing violent bigots because they’re “being twats.” Their actions endanger other people. And you.
Yeah, very robust self defense is 100% in my ethics. I’m not a pacifist.
On the fraud/defamation I kind of think we should develop ways to prevent harm socially. I consider trade/society a form of technology we’re constantly developing. It’s been taken over by government to enrich themselves and their rich buddies instead of serving as tech to improve life for everyone.
If we’re using the current US definition of threat I’m fine considering that aggression in most cases. Imminent threat. Ability to pull it off. A lot of things have negative impacts that I don’t consider aggression.
I’m fine being in danger. It’s kind of weird, but arguing against racism or for trans rights gets me much less push back than arguing for abolishing the death penalty or legalizing all drugs. There are huge pieces of shit out there that I wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to, but there are also a lot of people with little to no knowledge of some of this shit. Or people that have some silly, ignorant ideas and no experience to help show them they’re being a dumbass.
Surely your principles include responding to violence, even if they aren’t violent proactively. There must be situations where ‘being good to others’ means defending them against harm.
Undoubtedly, physical harm.
Presumably, reputational harm. If some fraud tries ruining a stranger’s life by lying to their friends, family, and associates, there are legal consequences for that, and state actions can prevent future attacks.
So what about threats of physical harm? Do they never count as indefensible damage? Can you say, with a straight face, they have no negative impact on their target? Some verbal abuse is different from being struck because bruises on the outside will heal.
We’re not talking about silencing violent bigots because they’re “being twats.” Their actions endanger other people. And you.
Yeah, very robust self defense is 100% in my ethics. I’m not a pacifist.
On the fraud/defamation I kind of think we should develop ways to prevent harm socially. I consider trade/society a form of technology we’re constantly developing. It’s been taken over by government to enrich themselves and their rich buddies instead of serving as tech to improve life for everyone.
If we’re using the current US definition of threat I’m fine considering that aggression in most cases. Imminent threat. Ability to pull it off. A lot of things have negative impacts that I don’t consider aggression.
I’m fine being in danger. It’s kind of weird, but arguing against racism or for trans rights gets me much less push back than arguing for abolishing the death penalty or legalizing all drugs. There are huge pieces of shit out there that I wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to, but there are also a lot of people with little to no knowledge of some of this shit. Or people that have some silly, ignorant ideas and no experience to help show them they’re being a dumbass.