Comments

  2. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Will this be yet another Thunderdome taken over by mental masturbation philosophy?

    Some enlightened soul might love the sound of their own voice but come on, there are limits!

  5. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    EL, previous thread:

    Ok, so you say when a criminal does it then it’s violence, but when the police do the same same physical actions, then it’s not violence because it’s done according to the rules – rules which the victim of the violence never consented to.

    This is bullshit.

    Let me expand on something I said parenthetically in the last thread.

    In my line of work, I am allowed (in certain, very specific) circumstances, to inflict pain and bodily injury on people, and restrain them against their will. If I do so in a manner that follows the (very clear-cut) rules that have been instituted, my actions legally do not constitute a crime.

    I am not a cop. I’m a nurse.

    Most people, if you say to them, “This unpleasant and painful thing is necessary for your health and recovery. We will do it as quickly as possible, threat your pain, and generally do it in a manner that minimizes your suffering,” will endure it (so long as they understand that such-and-such is necessary, that the pain they will feel will minimize future pain and suffering, and they trust us to hurt them as little as possible). This, I think we both agree, does not constitute “violence” because the patient consents.

    But what if they don’t consent? That’s a very simple answer: the law, my employer’s policies, and the standards of my profession state clearly that a person who is competent may refuse to undergo any medical procedure, even if we – the caregivers – are united in our belief that they will suffer and die without it. The wishes of a competent patient cannot be overruled, and many states – including New York, where I work – mandate that caregivers can be compelled to facilitate the delivery of care they believe to be unethical or improper if the patient wants that care.

    But what if they don’t consent because they are incapable of consenting (i.e. they are a young child or they have a psychological or mental condition that impairs their cognition)? Am I allowed to act? The law says that someone who is incapacitated must have a legal guardian (in the case a child, this is usually a parent) who can give, or withhold, consent on their behalf. Sometimes, the patient (as they don’t understand what’s happening, despite our best effort to explain it in terms they can understand) fights, so we have to restrain them and subject them to a painful procedure. This is unquestionably forceable, and – in my opinion – constitutes violence. The law does not see it as actionable and so long as certain guidelines are followed properly, my co-workers and I are shielded from both charges. I don’t enjoy doing this (in fact, I rather hate it), but I recognize that it is sometimes necessary. What do you think?

  6. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    [I hit “submit” rather than “preview.” Argh.]

    Another thing the law explicitly sanctions is restraints – if my co-workers, collectively (and it MUST be collective – we cannot act unilaterally) agree that a patient is acutely a danger to themselves and/or someone else, we’re allowed to restrain them and – sometimes – subject them to certain forms of treatment against their will. If we follow the guidelines written for these circumstances, this does not legally constitute any crime. This is unquestionably forceable. It is, as in the circumstance I mentioned previously, in my opinion violence. But it isn’t legally actionable and is sometimes justified and necessary. What do you think?

    In my opinion, consent – while of course hugely important – is not the only thing relevant, and there are circumstances – circumstances that must be clearly defined and limited – where consent can be overruled.

  7. says

    Giliell

    You keep shitting on victims of violence by declaring taht about every person in the world is a victim of violence several times a day while in reality the overwhelming majority of those people has a reasonably good day without suffering shit while enjoying the benefits of organised society.

    I feel I need to acknowledge this. Firstly because, well, it just feels like the right thing to do. Secondly because I hate the thought that I have helped to hurt anyone, let alone someone who I admire. And, though logically (who said emotions should be logical?) it should make no difference, that the person I’ve hurt is a fellow abuse-victim whose pain I don’t have to imagine, but merely close my eyes and remember, tears the heart right out of me; to the point where there are tears in my eyes as I type this.

    But we have an impasse. Because while you feel that your experience is cheapened by the enforcement of law being described as violence, my contention that it is such derives directly from my own experience of abuse. Having experienced violence myself, I find myself unwilling to refuse to acknowledge that I, via my government, am inflicting violence on others. It’s relatively minor violence, and sadly a necessary evil, but I feel that the consequences of not acknowledging that it is violence—that what we are doing is deliberately causing harm to people—are too great.

    All laws, and their enforcement, are a balancing act. We perpetrate small violences—cause lesser harms—in order protect ourselves from bigger violences, greater harms. But we should, I think, always be aware that we are balancing one violence—one harmful action—against another, and strive to keep the harm done to a minimum. I simply don’t know how we can do that, unless we first admit that we are doing violence, deliberately causing harm, no matter how necessary, relatively minor, or unavoidable it may be.

    Just as you feel hurt by my conclusion, I feel hurt by yours; it feels like a massive betrayal of victims of violence which is perpetrated in my name, with my permission and approval, and by extension, a betrayal of the traumatised eight year old who still lives inside my head. I cannot deny that and remain honest, but I can, should, and emphatically do aplogise for the pain this causes you—the pain I have caused you.

  8. says

    Anteprepro:

    So THAT’s why marriage is a thing. It’s a handy date stamp.

    If we ignore the marriage stamp in favour of the ‘we’ve been together for’ stamp, then it’s 38 years for us, not 36. :D

  9. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Giliell & Esteleth:
    Oh, dear. Giliell & Esteleth, I wish you strength in your time of trial.

    I noticed EL said:

    @Crip Dyke
    Crip Dyke continues to score more cheap points while refusing to engage with the substance of the arguments. I admit that my use of language was technically incorrect. I have to at least give props to Giliell for being willing to simply state their position. I wish Cryp Dyke could do the same.

    Oh, my. This kind of crap really is scary. I hope you don’t experience the same violence from EL.

    After all:
    1. This is an attempt to enforce his desire to get some information out of me.
    2. Even though most information is disclosed without violence, there exist corner cases where violence is used to extract information.
    3. On public discussions on the internet, women are particularly likely to get harassing messages should they not concede to the demands of random folks they don’t know on the internet.
    4. This is a public discussion. This is occurring on the internet. I am a woman. EL is, to me, some random person. EL to me is unknown.
    5. It has happened before that someone on the internet started out being a jerk on the internet and then proceeded to be violent in real life.
    6. Every woman knows this, and the existence of attempts to force one to have a conversation one doesn’t want implicitly reminds women of the potential for violence.
    7. This implicit reminder has the content of a threat – in the same way that seeing a total on the register contains an implied threat. (“Pay this money or you do not get ownership of the goods you’ve selected. Run out the store with these goods despite not paying and violence may ultimately be used.”)
    8. If a person must make choices in the context of such an implied threat, that person is the victim of the implied threat.
    9. An everyday action that apparently proceeds without violence ***is in fact violence itself*** if it might in rare cases lead to actual violence. This is true in all cases by definition.
    10. Therefore, the victim of such an everyday action that apparently proceeds without violence ***is in fact a true victim of violence***. Almost by definition.
    11. Given the nature of the internet and the implied threats of violence thereon, you, Giliell and Esteleth, fit the definition of the victim in #10 if EnlightenmentLiberal, in any way, attempts to get you to talk about a topic on the internet.

    oh, dear. I guess it’s already too late, isn’t it?

    For both of you attempting to recover from this horrible, horrible violence, may you know healing. And if you cannot know healing, may you know wholeness.

    Also? I note that:
    1. Even in EL’s mind, I’m the one who is scoring points. That’s just plain sad. Buck-up, daddy-O, maybe you can score a point some day too.

    2. I was pleasantly surprised to see EL write:

    I admit that my use of language was technically incorrect.

    But I am left wondering, is EL just conceding that everything EL wrote in the last TD was incorrect, or is EL – in EL’s mind, certainly not in actual conversation – somehow reserving this concession to some particular subset of things EL wrote in the last TD?

    Because of EL’s quite singular intention to engage openly and honestly, I suspect we’ll never know.

    I have to at least give props to Giliell for being willing to simply state their position. I wish Cryp Dyke could do the same.

    3. EL thinks: “I am not engaging, I am mocking you” is complicated? Or does EL think that is unclear? The poor little EnlightenmentLiberal really is stuck in the mud, eh?
    Maybe I should ask the rest of you reading this thread:

    Did I make clear in simple terms that I will not engage with EL unless and until EL has the honesty to actually present a definition of violence that can be used to check EL’s work?

    Did I make clear that I’m having a grand old time mocking the shit out of EL? In simple terms that even EL has at least a chance of understanding?

    I leave the answers to your collective wisdom.

    Also, yet another thing that made me laugh:

    Giliell: You’re constantly equating things that are not actually the same.

    One can recognize X and Y as both violence, but one as a more severe form of violence. Recognizing X and Y both as violence is not asserting that they are both equally bad. I have done no such equivocation. It is all in your head.

    Really? “Equating” ===> “Equivocation”? Once again EL changes a crucial word to get people to say things that they didn’t say?

    Maybe it really is just that EL’s command of the English language is that bad, who knows? If EL thinks that government == violence, killing == harm, and equating == equivocation, maybe nothing I’ve said is simple or clear to EL.

    I did take a moment to look up “equating” for people actually interested in what Giliell said.

    v.tr.
    1. To make equal or equivalent.
    2. To reduce to a standard or an average; equalize.
    3. To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent: equates inexperience with youth.
    v.intr.
    1. To be or seem to be equal; correspond.
    2. To result in: feared that high taxes would equate to a sluggish economy.

    I am Groot! It looks like those examples are merely equating things with respect to a given quality or set of qualities.

    It’s like calling a bunch of things “violence” equates them with respect to the quality “violence” without “equating” them with respect to the quality “severe”!

    I am Groot!

    Wow, this is an incredible and fascinating new word that’s been discovered. In addition to making Giliell correct and EL wrong and a douchegabber (always good outcomes, almost by definition), this creates the possibility of saying entirely new things that actually mean something different.

    With this new understanding of “equate” not meaning “make the same exact thing occupying the same exact place and time, in every way, for eternity, by definition” one could actually distinguish:

    “I equate government with violence”
    and
    “Government is violence”.

    It’s even remotely possible that one could say the first without being roundly mocked!

    It’s a whole new world, I tell you.

  10. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Caine:

    I forgot to wish you happyhappies.

    May you and the Mr have at least another good 38 years.

  13. Reginald Selkirk says

    From Panda’s Thumb:
    Teachers first, scientists second

    That is one of the disquieting results of a new survey, Enablers of doubt, by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. The two Penn State professors interviewed a total of 35 students on 4 Pennsylvania campuses in 2013. All the students were training to be biology teachers; many were not comfortable with the theory of evolution, and many were “concerned about their ability to navigate controversy initiated by a student, parent, administrator, or other members of the community.” Indeed, instead of relying on their knowledge of biology, they intended to fall back on classroom-management techniques to deal with creationist students…

  15. Rob Grigjanis says

    Caine: Congratulations! I asked a friend once what the secret of his long marriage was. He said lack of ambition. :)

  16. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @ Daz:

    I get it. That’s a serious ethical position to take. And I worry about your struggle. But we don’t have to say that things that aren’t violence **are violence**. It seems like what you really want is the ability to instill in others a sense of responsibility and accountability, to eliminate the willful ignorance of things done in our name.

    That’s a great goal, and one I support. I simply don’t believe that it requires “government == violence” or “force == violence” or “taxes == violence”. Given that taking those positions

    1. hurts people
    2. confuses people more than it clarifies issues for people
    and
    3. makes people defensive (and reasonably so, given the actual definition/s of “violence”!)
    which, taken together,
    4. makes creating positive change, including the reduction of violence, actually more difficult even if it does bring a potential increase in awareness of certain violence

    I actually believe that using that language (or defending it when EL uses it) is counterproductive. I provided a hypothetical example with the HR department making racist decisions about which resumes deserve to be passed on to a hypothetical hiring committee. Racism by its nature involves violence. Racism depends on violence. And yet entering the HR department and accusing them of violence simply isn’t going to be productive, even if it might, at some future point, for some members of HR, lead to a greater appreciation of the connections between racist microaggressions and actual racist violence.

    May I consider your words for a moment?

    I simply don’t know how we can do that, unless we first admit that we are doing violence, deliberately causing harm, no matter how necessary, relatively minor, or unavoidable it may be.

    What if we distinguished the “we”? What if we first admit that **someone** is doing violence. Not all of us. Not all the time. Not by definition. What if we first admit that **someone, somewhere** is doing violence?

    What if we then point out that this violence has real, negative consequences. Like prolonged solitary confinement, for instance. What if we then asked, “What makes this so morally different from the violence perpetrated by, e.g., an abusive spouse that we don’t try and, upon conviction, imprison the guards who employ prolonged solitary confinement?”

    What if we then pointed out that **legality on its own does not equate to good morality**?

    What if we made it clear that what makes that different in moral character is the willingness to be responsible and accountable? Yes, we don’t punish the person if they inflict prolonged solitary confinement according to some list of rules (laws, regulations, policies, and/or procedures), but that it is the willingness to accountability that results in a truly different moral character for the action – whether or not the action counted as violence.

    What if we then point out that true accountability must adjust itself when new information becomes available about the harms intrinsic to taking an action?

    What if we then point out that the harms flow not merely from the action of the person inflicting prolonged solitary confinement, but from the people who pass laws that permit or require PSC? What if we then point out that appropriating money is part of this? What if we point out that these adults live in a system where accountability for the lawmakers is to the people, and that if we do not consciously hold lawmakers accountable, then that decision permits and even encourages actions which cause harm – so violent actions, some non-violent actions, but responsibility and accountability attach on the basis of the harm caused, not on the basis of whether rules were followed or on the basis of whether the action fell into some other categorization that is irrelevant to our morality decisions? (We determined that above.)

    Now we have a situation in which morality crucially depends on a willingness to be accountable for harms caused. We have every day people accountable not for violence per se, but for harms caused when they make **when THEY THEMSELVES MAKE** decisions to not hold lawmakers accountable…decisions that then permit and encourage other decisions and actions which then cause real harm.

    Then the person gets a choice, which carries its own consequences:

    Am I willing to be accountable for the harms that flow from my choices? If no, then I am violating the principles of morality to which I agreed earlier in this conversation. Not only will I **be** taking bad, immoral action, but that person in conversation **will perceive me as** as bad, immoral person. Ouch!

    Now we have awareness and a chance of holding someone accountable without nearly the level of defensiveness. It’s a path that has a much greater chance of success **and** it avoids the harm of minimizing actual violence that flows from equating posting a speed limit sign with shooting Michael Brown.

    For these reasons –
    1. that doing so does not limit, in practice, my ability to raise awareness of harms inflicted by my government
    2. that doing so apparently increases (though I am open to data showing otherwise) the chance of avoiding defensiveness which would limit the capacity to raise awareness
    3. that doing so carefully places accountability on each person only for actions actually taken and decisions actually made
    4. that the placement of accountability serves the simultaneous purpose of helping others understand what power they have to effect changes
    5. that doing so increases our mutual understandings of morality and our duties to each other
    and
    6. that doing so ultimately is going to have more success in reducing or eliminating harms, and to have that success more quickly and with fewer wall-inflicted wounds to my head

    I chose not to equate displaying a total at the cash register that includes both a “price” and a “tax” that is almost certain to be paid voluntarily with “violence” because asking for the tax to be paid is an “enforcement action” and thus the first step in a potential causal chain that might, someday, in rare circumstances, lead to actual violence.

    You seem to be struggling with the question of how to get people accountable without yelling, “Taxes is theft” or “government is violence” or some such.

    I agree that unexpected and shocking metaphors can, in certain circumstances, be useful, forceful (not to say violent) eye-openers.

    I’m happy to concede that there is a time and place for them. If you chose to do that in certain circumstances, and took advantage of any happily-resulting openness to new information to then clarify that what you really mean is that the work of government inevitably involves the threat of violence, and in actual practice inevitably involves actually inflicting violence, I really wouldn’t bother myself with your tactical choice.

    Pharyngula, however, is a phairly politically aware place. We don’t need to be metaphorically slapped upside the head to hear the statement “in actual practice, the work of government will inevitably involve instances of violence that go unpunished on the basis of legal authority”.

    Moreover, you responded to critiques with what really seemed (at least to me) to be a dogmatic adherence to specific language equating all force with all violence and naming anyone who resisted the formulation, “government is by definition violence,” an opponent of the idea that some actions taken by the government are, in fact, violence.

    This isn’t a tactical choice. This is clinging to verbiage that is, quite reasonably, subject to critique. I can critique your language or your tactics or your inability to tactically adjust without being opponent of obvious, self-evident truths.

    Frankly, it is painful to me and to others on this thread to be treated as if we are opponents of obvious, self-evident truths when what we are arguing is that the use of a word to mean something that is clearly not within the scope of the actual definition of the word is going to make it harder to make the world a better place.

    If what you want is a better world, defined as a world with less violence and more awareness of violence and more accountability, neither Giliell nor Esteleth nor I constitute an enemy of you or your goals.

    Make an argument that your use of particular language was necessary in this thread and I’ll happily listen to it and consider it. I instantly conceded to Dysomniak that I was wrong to talk about contractarian ethics in the abstract in the way that I did (even if the point of doing so was to identify the ways in which libertarians vacillate unethically between embracing and ignoring contractarian ethics).

    You know my behavior on Pharyngula. I’ll happily argue forcefully. If it’s EL, I’ll even happily engage in extended mockery. But unlike EL, I’m happy to really think about others critiques of my arguments or positions and make concessions publicly and specifically when I’ve been convinced I was in error or made an immoral/unethical decision.

    The kind of serious struggle in which you engage above – speculation about how we can avoid minimizing the harms done to one person without minimizing the possibility of success of ending harm – is a part of a long and ongoing dialog between the tactics of harm reduction and the tactics of eradication. It’s a serious question for ethicists, and I am entirely unsurprised that it’s coming up for you. It comes up for every human being, albeit in different forms and at different times.

    I struggle with this all the time. I don’t happen to believe these tactics are in conflict in this case, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

    This is the conversation I’m happy to have.

  17. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Oh, shit. Not only block quote fail, but I forgot to put at the top of my #16 the portion of you comment, Daz, to which I was responding.

    The quote which inspired my #16 was this one, from you at #7:

    we have an impasse. Because while you feel that your experience is cheapened by the enforcement of law being described as violence, my contention that it is such derives directly from my own experience of abuse. Having experienced violence myself, I find myself unwilling to refuse to acknowledge that I, via my government, am inflicting violence on others. It’s relatively minor violence, and sadly a necessary evil, but I feel that the consequences of not acknowledging that it is violence—that what we are doing is deliberately causing harm to people—are too great.

    All laws, and their enforcement, are a balancing act. We perpetrate small violences—cause lesser harms—in order protect ourselves from bigger violences, greater harms. But we should, I think, always be aware that we are balancing one violence—one harmful action—against another, and strive to keep the harm done to a minimum. I simply don’t know how we can do that, unless we first admit that we are doing violence, deliberately causing harm, no matter how necessary, relatively minor, or unavoidable it may be.

  18. says

    Esteleth, RN’s job is to save your ass, not kiss it (#5) –

    In my line of work, I am allowed (in certain, very specific) circumstances, to inflict pain and bodily injury on people, and restrain them against their will. If I do so in a manner that follows the (very clear-cut) rules that have been instituted, my actions legally do not constitute a crime.

    I am not a cop. I’m a nurse.

    There’s a very distinct difference between and you and cops can do.

    If you ever felt like, “I really don’t want to deal with this patient!” you would never contemplate (let alone try) something like putting an air bubble into a vein and killing the person. There would be serious repercussions and your career would be over, even if it were an accident and not done maliciously. You’re aware of and always consider your actions.

    There are numerous incidents where cops simply decided to kill people instead of making any effort to arrest or help them and they faced no consequences (e.g. Aura Rosser). Including when people posed no threat to them (e.g. Tamir Rice).

    http://gawker.com/police-officer-shoots-and-kills-naked-unarmed-black-ma-1690533895

  19. says

    Meanwhile the Kent Hovind trial has entered its second week with the defense taking its turn, and the man himself is on the the stand today.

    Just been listening to the report from his deluded followers on his performance and they are practically giddy about his performance so far. Apparently he’s just confirmed for them that he’s the preacher of this generation, and a “Founder caliber” statesman to boot. It seems the judge and jury may have to sit through another three days of Hovind’s shtick.

  20. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Giliell

    You cannot have a reasonable discussion with somebody who completely erases all shades of cyan between “a very remote possibility of violence” and “actually inflicting violence”.

    I agree that is a useful distinction to make. However, it’s less useful than you would let on. A true threat of violence X is very comparable to actual violence X. For example, you have to hold that last position because that’s why rape is still rape even when the victim does not resist and submits, and when the aggressor uses no force.

    I agree that the harm of paying taxes is far less bad than the harm of being incarcerated. In this sense, everyone is subject to the threat of violence, e.g. violence, several times every day. Several times a day, everyone is subject to the true threat “pay your taxes, or else”, and the very minimal harm of paying taxes. The harm of the true threat and the payment of taxes is of course far far less bad than even mere incarceration, and that is less bad than many other forms of violence common in this world. I agree for almost everyone tax enforcement is generally a minor nuisance at worst. We’ve simply been made used to, conditioned, to accept taxes and tax enforcement, and most of us don’t even see the violence inherent in the system any more.

    Again, I simply do not accept your apparent implicit premise that all violence is necessary life-shattering and horrid and unthinkable. Our society is based on violence, and society in the real world would be impossible without the regular codified deployment of violence in some cases.

    …

    You keep shitting on victims of violence by declaring taht about every person in the world is a victim of violence several times a day while in reality the overwhelming majority of those people has a reasonably good day without suffering shit while enjoying the benefits of organised society.

    And I politely disagree. You’re welcome to that interpretation that I’m “shitting on actual victims of violence”. I do not share it. It seems that I’m the one standing up for actual victims of violence which you choose to neglect, such as every person sitting in prison for tax evasion.

    Again, let me emphasize that the incarceration of tax evaders is less severe and less bad than many other kinds of violence, but it’s still violence. I’d also like to say that imprisoning tax evaders is generally justified and good for society, and I support it. However, incarceration is still violence, and I want us as a society to explore ways to lessen the need for incarceration in general because incarceration is violence.

    …

    @Esteleth

    What do you think?

    I think I’m in full agreement with you. The standard operating practices sound good.

    …

    @Daz in 7
    I know you probably don’t give two shits about me, but thanks for taking a stand for honesty.

    …

    PS: I’m skipping Crip Dyke’s posts now. Someone let me know if they aren’t merely mocking me and if they say anything worthwhile.

  21. rq says

    Crip Dyke’s posts always say something worthwhile. It’s up to you to figure out what that is.

  23. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, EL still has nothing cogent to say, and is repeating themselves like any preacher would. And with as much evidence as a preacher uses….none.

  24. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @anteprepro:

    Was that supposed to be Wordwank?

    Just checking.

    @rq:

    Thanks for the vote of confidence. And the laugh.

  25. anteprepro says

    rq:

    Crip Dyke’s posts always say something worthwhile. It’s up to you to figure out what that is.

    Compared to EL’s posts, which rarely say something worthwhile, but it’s up to you to figure out what they are even trying to say.

    It’s rather rich that EL rejects Crip Dyke out of hand for “mockery”. Might as well start a grand ol’ lecture about tone. Ideally, about the dictionary definition of tone. And how it is also violence.

  26. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    EL @20, please explain why it is justifiable for me, as a nurse, to restrain someone for the sake of inflicting pain on them (while I tell myself that “it’s for their own good”) while it’s not okay for an officer of the law (let’s set this cop as the gold-standard ethical truly good-guy cop) to restrain someone for the sake of getting them to obey social compacts that have been enshrined in law.

    Explain to me the difference.

    Oh and left0ver1under, deliberately injecting enough air into someone’s veins to cause an embolism would – if they died – be murder. I would be flagrantly disobeying the standards of my practice and would deserve to be stripped of my license and tossed in jail. The cops in that article likewise acted in a manner utterly out of keeping with the standards of what their profession should be and deserve to face consequences.

    But see, EL isn’t railing against cops who unilaterally decide to kill unarmed people (who are people of color with suspicious frequency), EL is railing against taxation, effectively all forms of government, and – as near as I can tell – the entirety of the criminal-justice system.

  27. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    If you want to argue “the American criminal-justice system is so corrupted by racism and graft to not deserve to include the word ‘justice’ and should be dismantled and rebuilt in a different form,” I’d be in agreement with you and be willing to share ideas for how to do this optimally. Ranting about the perfidy of the existence of a system, any system at all is a different thing.

  29. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    It’s rather rich that EL rejects Crip Dyke out of hand for “mockery”. Might as well start a grand ol’ lecture about tone. Ideally, about the dictionary definition of tone. And how it is also violence.

    Oh, it’s more than that. My decision to just switch to mockery (instead of switching to silence, since I clearly couldn’t productively engage that bullshit any longer) was influenced quite a bit by this:

    Let me use “why do I believe the sun will rise tomorrow” to exemplify how my position is quite workable, and to make fun of consciousness razor for not being able or willing to do the same.

    **SOMEONE** on the previous ThunderDome decided well before i did that talking to the rest of the thread while mocking someone specific was an appropriate response to someone unable or unwilling to productively engage.

    I wonder who that was???

    See, more than just rich. It would be an example from an Alanis Morissette song, except she seems to have the same working definition of literally as does EL.

  30. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    ZOMG, anteprepro, that video was awesome.

    I love me some Mitchell & Webb (and, of course, it helps that I only see the clips on the internet which means I don’t have to watch the sketches that fail), but I hadn’t seen Wordwang yet. That sketch was literally Dadaism in the best sense of the word.

  31. rq says

    Wordwang or Wordwank, it’s all just violence from here on in.
    Did I say violence? I meant mockery.

  32. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke: Sad truth is I’ve only seen maybe three or four episodes of that show. It is pure gold, but I don’t even remember how I managed to see it in the first place, because it is certainly not accessible via cable. Must have seen episodes online but not many. And then suddenly I am off hunting.

  33. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Esteleth

    EL @20, please explain why it is justifiable for me, as a nurse, to restrain someone for the sake of inflicting pain on them (while I tell myself that “it’s for their own good”) while it’s not okay for an officer of the law (let’s set this cop as the gold-standard ethical truly good-guy cop) to restrain someone for the sake of getting them to obey social compacts that have been enshrined in law.

    I’ve been included this disclaimer in many of my posts now. Guess it’s time to include it again (somewhat modified):

    To everyone. I’m going to regularly include this disclaimer because some people are joining the conversation early and missing context.

    I’m a radical socialist in analysis. I agree with the standard libertarian analysis that tax enforcement violates the non-aggression principle. Tax enforcement includes incarceration, and incarceration is violence. I also think that operational private property cannot exist in the real world absent violent enforcement (including the threat of violent enforcement).

    However, I also happen to think that the non-aggression principle is bullshit. I am not a libertarian. I agree with the analysis of the problem, and I agree it’s a problem, but I don’t agree with the libertarian solution. I think that the threat of incarceration, and actual incarceration, in tax enforcement as commonly practiced in the US, is mostly justified. I support this incarceration as unavoidable in whole, and the least evil of the choices available. However, I think there’s room for improvement, and I would like to change society for the better to reduce our prison populations.

    I also think that some degree of operational private property is required for human well-being, and I again think that this is the least evil of the choices available. However, I don’t agree with absolute private property rights. I want very heavy progressive death taxes, progressive income taxes, for the expressed purpose of wealth redistribution. I want more government funding for the common good, including infrastructure, education, welfare, perhaps some form of guaranteed minimum income.

    Ranting about the perfidy of the existence of a system, any system at all is a different thing.

    per·fi·dy. noun. deceitfulness; untrustworthiness. (According to google)

    What a very odd interpretation.

    I have ranted that there is violence inherent in the system. Almost as frequently, I have also stated that I support this use of violence of threats of incarceration and actual incarceration for tax enforcement, and that this violence makes the world into a better place for basically everyone.

    I don’t think I’ve argued for the deceitfulness of the system. Untrustworthiness? I support the system of violence, and so presumably I think it worthy of some degree of trust.

    Again, I don’t seem to hold the implicit premise of everyone here that violence is unjust. I think that violence is an inescapable part of society on this planet with the technological and physics conditions we have to work with. I think that recognizing this fact is an important first step in order to lessen the problem. While I think that it’s impossible to do away completely with the violence inherent in the system, I think that currently there’s lots of room for improvement.

    PS: I’ve repeated myself so many times now. le sigh. Not sure if I’m being unclear, or if people are just coming in late, or what.

  34. rq says

    anteprepro

    Compared to EL’s posts, which rarely say something worthwhile, but it’s up to you to figure out what they are even trying to say.

    I’ll admit it: I’m weak. I gave up.
    Can we have a commercial break? A rather long one?

  35. anteprepro says

    PSA:
    Domestic abuse, government, verbal threats, personal property, sexual assault, mockery, prison, battery, taxes, the economy, homicide, healthcare, any form of surcharge, warfare, and particularly passionate and loud expression of yourself . Violence takes many forms. And not all of those forms are equal. But they are all violence. And this strange semantic semi-truth matters for some reason.

    Join the Enlightenment Army today. For a future where the horror and injustice of the social contract is no longer a thing. Or where you just spend a massive amount of time and effort trying to see how far you can stretch a page of the dictionary and see how long you can do it before everyone just gets exhausted and walks away. Or something. Just join it already.

  37. anteprepro says

    Fuck.

    Again, I don’t seem to hold the implicit premise of everyone here that violence is unjust. I think that violence is an inescapable part of society on this planet with the technological and physics conditions we have to work with. I think that recognizing this fact is an important first step in order to lessen the problem. While I think that it’s impossible to do away completely with the violence inherent in the system, I think that currently there’s lots of room for improvement.

    So violence isn’t inherently unjust and is inescapable….but it needs to be recognized, in order to lessen the problem, and it needs to be improved.

    Government. Taxation. We need to recognize that they are violence in order to improve them. But violence isn’t inherently unjust.

    Maybe the reason no one understands poor ol misunderstood Enlightenment Liberal is because the poor thing can’t help but talk out of both sides of their mouth? In as many words as possible?

  38. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal @233 (last thread)

    Most of the definitions of “violence” posted by Crip Dyke sound good to me. I’m currently working on the assumption that “imprisonment of an informed adult without the adult’s consent by force” is violence.

    1. Thank you for finally providing the definition of violence that you’re using.
    2. Your definition does not match any of the definitions of violence offered by Crip Dyke, so I’m puzzled that her definitions sound good to you, but you don’t make use of any of them.
    3. Is your definition of violence only meant to cover very specific situations? I ask because it’s not inclusive of the type of actions I typically think of as acts of violence (i.e. domestic abuse, school shootings, drone bombings).

  40. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    3rd post, and then I’m done with my stream-of-consciousness posting:

    What precisely constitutes “consent”? I ask because right now in medicine and nursing there’s a furious debate over what, precisely, constitutes “informed consent.” A lot of this revolves around end-of-life care: most people, when they enter a hospital, request to be what is referred to in medical parlance as “full code,” that is, they want “everything” to be done in the event that they become unresponsive and require emergency treatment. The majority of patients in hospitals at any given moment are full code.

    The difficulty is that the average layperson doesn’t understand what precisely “everything” is, and it’s effectively impossible to explain to someone what precisely this means – the average person has to see it.

    When you ask someone, “When you envision your death, what does it look like?” usually they’ll say something along the lines of “I’m at the end of a long and full life, resting comfortably in bed, with my friends and family at my side as I gently slip away.”

    Statistics indicate that relatively few people actually die like this.

    So you have a patient who five years ago, before they were sick, said, “Do everything.”

    They’re now incoherent (from pain or morphine, and sometimes both because there are limits to how much morphine you can legally administer), they’re never going to walk, eat food, or feel the touch of an ungloved hand again. Machines are breathing for them, circulating their blood, and hydrating and nourishing them. Tubes enter them all over. Bloody sores that penetrate to their bones cover their body (sometime, do an image search for “decubitus ulcer”). This isn’t, in all probability, how they wanted to die. But then they do die, despite “heroic” efforts by nurses and doctors (who feel like villains and who ponder primum non nocere and if that aphorism has any meaning any more), and the family is left to collect a broken and emaciated body that barely resembles their relative – or a human, for that matter – any longer while the staff are left to hope that the undertakers are able to make them look okay for the funeral and say things like, “they aren’t in pain any more.” Until that bed is filled again by another patient who is functionally identical, usually within a few hours.

    It strains understanding that the patient wanted to die like that, or that they consented to all of that. They consented and asked for everything and for their life to be preserved at all costs.

    They got everything. The staff preserved their life at all costs. The staff obeyed the patient’s wishes.

    Or did they? Did the patient actually consent?

  42. consciousness razor says

    **SOMEONE** on the previous ThunderDome decided well before i did that talking to the rest of the thread while mocking someone specific was an appropriate response to someone unable or unwilling to productively engage.

    I wonder who that was???

    You’re evidently referring to me, but it doesn’t look like I ever was ridiculed. That was the promise or maybe he thought he attempted it, but it just turned out to be a lot of throat-clearing and transparent dishonesty from EL. Then he moves on to a new topic, so he can say confusing and dishonest shit about that. Same old story.

    It doesn’t make a difference, but I sometimes have a hard time figuring out when EL’s believing his own bullshit and loving the smell of it, when he’s trying to cover his tracks and being stupid enough to believe it’s not obvious to everyone else, or when he’s just being a good old fashioned obtuse jackass who simply doesn’t get how thoroughly incoherent his shit is. Whatever it is, he seems to have an endless supply of the stuff, or at least it’s been this way for years.

  44. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    On an entirely separate point:

    Is it any longer true that taxes – in theory, or by definition, not merely as actually currently practiced – must be enforced by violence?

    Say we pass a law that banks/credit unions that don’t comply with XYZ can’t borrow money from the Fed. Or, in the alternative, what if the Fed’s standard contract to borrow money includes an agreement to follow the nations laws that apply to banks/credit unions – the penalty for which is that the Fed will not lend you money for a breach of Type=Severe for 1 year or a penalty for a breach of Type=NotSevereButAlsoNotTrivial for one day or a penalty for a breach of Type=Trivial for one hour. This penalty period is from the 7 days after the date the infraction was determined by the Fed to have occurred until the end of the prescribed penalty period. BUT the penalty periods can never be concurrent, so they are scheduled (in the order by which they were originally identified) so that they begin, with no gap, at the end of the last penalty period if a penalty period was already being served when the penalty period would otherwise have gone into effect. This permits massive numbers of small violations to result in a period of years without access to Fed money. What if among XYZ there’s a requirement that they can’t lend money to a credit union or bank who does not qualify for Fed loans because of a penalty period or because they have not sought and agreed to a contract with the Fed that would enable Fed loans?

    Okay, in today’s economy you have an enforcement mechanism that is terrible for the big banks that they have every reason to avoid and which in no way constitutes violence, not even in remote corner cases.

    Now, among XYZ is that the standard contract for a bank’s/credit union’s depositors MUST include a clause that the bank will withhold amounts equal to taxes owed if those monies are determined by the government to have gone unpaid. The standard contract must also stipulate that a person that doesn’t supply to the government sufficient information to determine the amount of tax owed will have their account frozen. The money isn’t reassigned to the government or any other party. You simply have no access to it unless and until your taxes are determined and, if necessary, deducted from your balance.

    NOW imagine that the government relies primarily on sales tax/VAT and import/export duties for funding. If you want to do enough business to have any reasonable amount of money owing in sales tax/VAT receipts, you’re going to have to have a bank account. Why? Because even if you wanted to keep your money in your mattress, with money in your mattress, you can’t prove you have income. If you can’t prove you have income, you can’t get business loans. Presto, every business has a strong incentive to perform actions (in this case, keep money on deposit in banks) that bring its money within the non-violent reach of the government.

    Now, some taxes will be avoided by bankruptcy – if the money isn’t there, it can’t be taken by the government – but the government has decided that it gets sufficient funds through these enforcement mechanisms. Most persons subject to income tax will file voluntarily, the remainder will either have assets frozen, or have the tax non-violently deducted, or be too poor to pay, or will have gone extra-national with their cash to avoid paying.

    The government does not authorize any enforcement actions other than non-violently freezing electronic monies or non-violently deducting the amount owed, and not a penny more, from electronic monies.

    The government chooses not to use other enforcement actions because society has decided that they aren’t worth the moral cost and the harms done in the process of enforcement.

    The government operates only with the funds available through this “carrot only” system.

    Is there anyone who believes that if the government were to choose this method of funding it would be literally impossible to collect enough money to maintain a functional government?

    Okay, anyone who reasonably believes that (EL, almost by definition, is an unreasonable believer).

    Well then, you have the skeleton of a system in which taxes ***do not even threaten, not even in rare, extreme, remote, or “corner” cases*** violence. Taxation literally cannot lead to violence on the part of government under this system.

    Thus ***even if one were so inclined as to employ the bullshit rhetoric that any action which might, in the future, in some rare, extreme, remote or corner case, end in violence IS ON ITS OWN AND BY DEFINITION VIOLENCE***, here is taxation that is not equal to violence.

    Thus the proposition that taxation is violence **by definition** and not **as practiced** is bullshit even when one bends over backward to make it as easy as possible for an EL to prove the case that EL’s original statement would have us believe.

    Whatever might have been true about feudal states is not necessarily true in every single instance of government now and forever more. I happily aspire to a government that uses violence only when and to the extent truly required to reduce violence as a whole by government actors or non-. While limiting taxation to a form whose enforcement never includes violence is a vision I have not yet seen implemented anywhere, it’s clearly reasonable to expect that such a system would provide a relatively fair way of enforcing relatively fair taxation in sufficient quantity to fund a government that is functional and effective at the tasks assigned to it by the social contract, as detailed in a modern constitution.

    What’s so fucking hard about this?

  45. anteprepro says

    Saad:

    Bought a bag of almonds today. Got assaulted by the cashier.

    The cashier was also assaulted. He was forced to collect your money and let you take the almonds, or else MEN
    WITH GUNS.
    The store was also assaulted. They were forced to let you take your almonds when you gave the money, and are forced to hand over the tax collected on the almonds, or else MEN WITH GUNS.
    The almonds were also salted. That’s a different topic though.

  46. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor:

    I wonder who that was???

    You’re evidently referring to me, but it doesn’t look like I ever was ridiculed.

    Well, I was referring to EL, but EL was evidently referring to you.

    I did happen to note, however, that EL was as ruthlessly effective in mocking you as EL has been in the larger discussion of the definition of violence.

  47. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @consciousness razor
    I hold that ridicule is the only weapon which might be effective against unintelligible positions such as yours. However, I felt that ridicule in this instance would be ineffective, and I generally try to avoid being an ass for no reason.

    …

    @anteprepro in 37
    That’s about right. I fail to see the problem. I fail to see how I’ve been “talking out of both sides of my mouth”. That seems like an eminently reasonable position, and apart from Daz, it’s the only position in this conversation which matches reality.

    Also, I try to be as short as possible. Sorry for my length.

  48. consciousness razor says

    Also, describing me as “someone unable or unwilling to productively engage” is … well … not accurate. You could say I (along with Nick) wasn’t producing the kind of nonsensical output that EL wanted, but that’s certainly not the same thing. The substantive points already made in that other conversation should be enough to explain it, if that’s not clear to you, but some people may not want to rehash that again now.

  49. Saad says

    anteprepro

    The almonds were also salted. That’s a different topic though.

    Argh! I regret not doing that in my post! It was right there!!

  50. says

    Saad @43:
    Your #43 made me violently laugh.

    ****

    I just realized that I help facilitate violence every day at work. As a bartender, I regularly present guests with their bill, which contains more than just the price of their meal and drinks. There are also taxes they have to pay. And I have it on good authority that taxes are violence.

  51. anteprepro says

    Goddamn EL. Do you have reading comprehension problems? I ask honestly.

    Of course you think that position is “eminently reasonable”: Because it your actual fucking words.

    And it shows that you are utterly incompetent because the contrast shows that IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

    You say 1. Violence is not unjust 2. Violence is inescapable.

    You then say 1. The fact that government/taxation is violence is problem 2. We must solve this by reducing its violence.

    And you just nod your head and agree at how reasonable it sounds to you? What the fuck are you on?

  53. says

    the violence inherent in the system
    Citation needed! (Help, help, he’s being repressed)

    Also, Someone let me know if they aren’t merely mocking me and if they say anything worthwhile.
    Sorry EL, but you might want to consider that your anti-gub’mint pseudo-philosophying and peculiar understanding of plain English words, considered in the light of a deluge of words in the last couple of Thunderdomes devoted to your metaphysical hobby-horses, is by this stage highly mockable. I read your stated political position in the last thread… so what? What is your end-goal for all this, aside from endless rhetorical masturbation?

  54. rq says

    Saad
    You have also assaulted me. You forced me into laughter. I’ll be taking this right to the top.
    Of the circus, probably. It’s a pretty big top.

  55. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @rq, #54

    It’s a pretty big top

    Almost by definition.

    @Saad, I laughed at your #43, and admit I was looking for the “salted” joke and didn’t see it. I interpreted it as you thinking it was just to cliche for this violent discussion. I interpreted it as you cleverly implying the joke without being so crass as to spell it out for us. I interpreted it as faith in the intelligence of the people on this thread.

    But then your #49 and I laughed again, so fucking hard. Somehow you **missing** the salted joke and yelling, “But it was right there!” gave me more grins than actually making the joke would have done.

    So there’s that????

    And, of course, I eventually realized that a general faith in the intelligence of the denizens of this thread might not have been entirely reasonable.

    Almost by definition.

    Then there’s this one:

    I felt that ridicule in this instance would be ineffective, and I generally try to avoid being an ass for no reason.

    Which just leaves one gasping for breath at the thought: EL has a **reason**??? What the fuck would that be???

    And, finally, I’ll just leave this one from EnlightenmentLiberal here for the taking:

    PS: I’ve repeated myself so many times now. le sigh. Not sure if I’m being unclear, or if people are just coming in late, or what.

    Do you think this is just a complicated, backhanded, cleverly concealed effort to mock me by leaving things that are so excessively easy to mock? An implied mocking of my ability to find less-obvious things to mock perhaps? I mean, wow.

  56. opposablethumbs says

    I vote for the almonds.

    Hmm … when my grandmother died, a couple-few years ago, her kids were all for the do-everything approach – except my mother, who happened to be the only one who (by reason of her profession) had more than a vague notion of what “everything” might entail. I may be biased, but my impression (based on visiting my gran in hospital) was that my mum was right.

  57. anteprepro says

    Xanthe:

    What is your end-goal for all this, aside from endless rhetorical masturbation?

    Rhetorical climax. By definition. Which will, sadly on our end, never arrive. Also by definition.

    And of course, the masturbation is violent and the climax would be also. Again, by definition.

    Deductively, it must be so.

  58. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @anteprepro in 51
    You’re missing an important qualifier in there, “some”. Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    For example, I think uncontroversial to say that it is generally just to incarcerate murderers and rapists. However, I also hope that it’s uncontroversial to say that incarcerating anyone is an undesirable state of affairs. Incarceration – like all violence – should be the option of last resort, and we should be loathe to use it, even on murderers and rapists. I want to make the world better for everyone, which includes lowering incarceration rates. We can achieve a society which is better for everyone, including lowered incarceration rates. Part of that includes doing away with the grotesquely long prison sentences that are commonplace in the United States today which has little to no relation to deterrence, rehabilitation, or isolation for the safety of others. Part of that includes changing the United States prison system to lessen its punitive and retributive nature, and to increase its rehabilitation nature. Part of that is changing general social conditions to make murder and rape occur less often, such as by improving economic conditions.

    To fix your quote, I would agree to:

    We generally refer to the least evil option as “good”. The least evil option includes some violence.

    Some violence is unjust. Some violence is just.

    Government cannot exist without taxes and tax enforcement – it is the fundamental nature and definition of government. One cannot have effective tax enforcement without violence according to the current facts of human nature and the current facts of our technological development. Perhaps in a Star Trek future with replicators and free energy taxes would no longer be required, but we do not live in a scifi economic utopia.

    Just and unjust are not black-and-white. Government legitimacy is not black and white. They are matters of degrees.

    We do not have an ideal society or government, but we are at a decent and tolerable society. Thus I’m willing to label the society as just, and the general application of codified violence as just. It’s “just enough” that I find tax evaders and sovereign citizens to be immensely unreasonable. It’s “just enough” that I find that any reasonable plan of making a world a better place includes paying taxes now to the current government.

    Some amount of violence of our present society is escapable, but some amount of current violence of our current society is inescapable. We cannot do away with all violence, but we can do better than the levels of violence in our current society.

  60. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Tony!, #50:

    I just realized that I help facilitate violence every day at work. As a bartender, I regularly present guests with their bill, which contains more than just the price of their meal and drinks. There are also taxes they have to pay. And I have it on good authority that taxes are violence.

    I knew it. I just fucking knew it.

    Black men are always violent.

    Hell, a Black man almost by definition **IS** violence.

    Really, what more is there to say?

  61. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Esteleth:

    Thank you. In particular for your #40, in somewhat particular for all 3 of your stream-of-consciousness comments, and in general for everything. I’ve not forgotten you offering to be there by e-mail, for instance.

    @Tony!, re: definitions.

    Did you see my comment on EL being a Palin clone? That was at #236, page 2, last TD.

    I still find it amazing that EL said that.

  62. anteprepro says

    Sorry. Having difficult time processing the person insisting that taxation must be considered violent chastising other people for black and white thinking. Must deal with smoke alarms.

  63. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And now, the lethal jackpot:

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    Seriously. I think I just literally pulled a Ned Devine. By definition.

    I mean, just look for yourselves:

    Government by definition is violence

    but then…

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    bukbukbuk BUkok!?!?

    For those who missed it:

    Government by definition is violence

    but then…

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    Hey now. That’s a right poser innit?

    But don’t despair, Crip Dyke is here! I offer several reasonable translations:

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    I use my own black-and-white thinking. I like it a lot better. Because all thinking is black-and-white, but just because it’s black-and-white thinking doesn’t mean it’s BAD thinking. Thinking by definition is black-and-white. Some black-and-white thinking, however, is necessary and justifiable. That’s the black-and-white thinking I endorse.

    Doesn’t seem quite accurate to you? Perhaps you’d like option 2:

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    This whole process of openly stating ones premises and methodology and then only making methodologically justified deductions and then only reaching methodologically justified conclusions? Rubbish.

    Use any type of thinking you want, as colorful, as impenetrable, as bizarre as you like.

    The important thing is that you come to black-and-white conclusions.

    That seem more reasonable?

    No?

    Harrumph. Let’s see. Is there a third option around here somewhere?

    Ah! Here it is. Number 3:

    Again, I do not use your black-and-white thinking.

    No, indeed. I don’t use my black-and-white thinking either.

    Again, I do not use thinking.

    That last one seems almost plausible.

  64. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Damnit anteprepro!

    Always coming before me!

    …uh, wait.

  65. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @anteprepro
    Does lawful incarceration count as violence? I argue yes.

    Does the United States government regularly employ incarceration to collect taxes? Obviously yes.

    It’s not black and white thinking to recognize that there are varying degrees of violence, and that some violence is just and some violence is unjust. Whereas, it is black and white thinking to say all violence is unjust, and lawful government action cannot be violence, and there’s no way it’s true that society is necessarily predicated on violence (contingent on the current facts of human nature, physics, and our technological development).

  67. jste says

    Have we reached the point where merely existing is violence? I mean… even if you’re a vegetarian, at least one of your ancestors probably ate a steak, or an oyster, or something.

  68. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Okay, so in all seriousness, for those persons not named EnlightenmentLiberal.

    EL labels taxation violence. EL does so knowing (I think) full well that taxation **per se** fits no definition of violence at all. But EL does so for a good purpose. EL wants to reduce violence. But EL isn’t actually opposed to violence. EL is opposed to **unjust violence**. So once EL gets everyone to agree that taxation == violence and that therefore government == violence, EL would like to discuss which aspects of violence are just and which are unjust so that we don’t get rid of all violence, just get rid of the unjust violence.

    And we have to define all of government as violence because some unjust actions aren’t actually violence, and to get someone to agree that government should cut that shit out, the person must first understand that the non-violent action is, in fact, violence. So that they can see that the action is unjust. Because violence is not a synonym for unjust and we must not oppose violence per se. But only if something is violence can we oppose it at all.

    And now that we have classified all government and all its actions as violence, we can begin the process of examining every action of government to see if it is just or not. Then, hopefully, we can get rid of the unjust things.

    …………………
    So, in summary:
    1. Government is violence.
    2. This is necessary to say because some government actions are unjust.
    3. I want the unjust actions identified.
    4. But identifying an action as violence does not begin to identify it as unjust. We need a separate analysis to see if the action is unjust.
    5. Begins to do the analysis of whether or not government actions X, Y, and Z are, individually or collectively, unjust.

    If the real concern isn’t violence (after all some violence is necessary, even justifiable, even good!) but whether or not an action is just…

    …why not just start with step 5?

    Even if you are sympathetic to EL’s worldview and Government == violence but violence != unjust, why bother fighting with everyone over steps 1-4? You don’t want to get rid of violence because it’s violence anyway. That something is violence is irrelevant to the decision of whether or not you want to do it. You only care if the government is doing **unjust** things.

    So why engage with 1-4 at all? I mean sure, you might actually hold those ideas in your head, but what the fuck is the point of talking about them if they have nothing to do with which aspects of government you want to change?

    You know when I said the phrase “government by definition is violence” was bizarre?

    now that I weakly conclude (and this is a very weak and tentative conclusion) that I have some idea of EL’s train of thought, I am not only not convinced that the statement is non-bizarre by definition. I actually **also think** it was bizarre **in practice** for EL to make the statement when EL clearly could care less if violence persists so long as only just violence persists.

    EnlightenmentLiberal – is that like a Meal, Ready to Eat?

  69. says

    CD @61:
    Oh, I saw that.
    I kept up with things here in the Dome during the slow times at work. Your comments (including the Palin one) made me snicker more than once.

    ****

    EL @65:

    It’s not black and white thinking to recognize that there are varying degrees of violence, and that some violence is just and some violence is unjust. Whereas, it is black and white thinking to say all violence is unjust, and lawful government action cannot be violence, and there’s no way it’s true that society is necessarily predicated on violence (contingent on the current facts of human nature, physics, and our technological development).

    Every time I see the word violence in your comments, I instinctively define the word in the same manner as the World Health Organization:

    The intentional use of physical force or power,
    threatened or actual, against oneself, another
    person, or against a group or community, that
    either results in or has a high likelihood of
    resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,
    maldevelopment or deprivation

    I need to remember that you’re using an indiosyncratic definition of violence. Because reasons.

  70. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @jste:

    Have we reached the point where merely existing is violence?

    Well, let’s see. I have an immune system that does violence to invasive organisms. Immune systems inevitably must take violent actions to enforce bodily integrity and homeostasis. Immune systems therefore by definition are violence. If I didn’t have an immune system, I wouldn’t be alive.

    QED.

    Yep. Think we have a winner.

  72. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony

    The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation

    Let’s break this down, shall we?

    > The intentional use of physical force or power,

    The IRS does have intent when it uses its force and power with full knowledge of the likely consequences.

    >threatened or actual,

    The IRS regularly makes threats to use its force and power. It is well-known that the threats of tax collection enforcement exist.

    The IRS and related government agents also regularly carry through on these threats and incarcerate tax evaders.

    >against oneself, another person, or against a group or community,

    The threats of force and power, and actual uses of threat and power, of the IRS, are done against a group – the residents and citizens of the United States.

    > that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation

    I’d say that incarceration counts as as injury (mental but not physical per se), psychological harm, maldevelopment, and deprivation.

    So Tony, I don’t understand. The regular actions of the IRS clearly qualify as violence under that definition.

  73. says

    EL @72:

    So Tony, I don’t understand.

    I know you don’t.
    You think this:

    The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation

    Is the same as this:

    “imprisonment of an informed adult without the adult’s consent by force”

  74. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony
    Well, not “the same thing as”, but “includes”.

    Yes. I am confused. It’s like we’re speaking different languages. We all agree that the actions of a kidnapper fits the definition, but you seem to hold that very similar actions when performed by a police officer acting in accordance with the law does not fit the definition. I don’t see why or how. I don’t see any part in your definition of “violence” which makes any mention about “lawful”, “police”, “justified”, etc.

  75. consciousness razor says

    Yes. I am confused.

    I think it’s worse than that, but for the sake of argument, let’s just agree on that much.

    It’s like we’re speaking different languages.

    It’s like you’re speaking Bullshitese, but you can’t stomach the thought of admitting when you make mistakes. And maybe you can’t resist the temptation to preach at us even when you don’t realize how full of shit you are.

    Someone speaking in a different language can be making perfect sense, even if I don’t speak that language. You’re not doing that. And we can’t both be right about this, while merely using “different languages.” So cut the fucking crap.

    We all agree that the actions of a kidnapper fits the definition,

    We all should agree that is not a good or just action, but not all such things are “violence.” Distinctions like that are important to make. If the kidnapped person is not injured or abused or suffers in some other way like that, then it isn’t “violence” as that term is generally understood. It’s kidnapping. With that in mind, let’s move on….

    but you seem to hold that very similar actions when performed by a police officer acting in accordance with the law does not fit the definition. I don’t see why or how.

    Maybe you don’t see because you’re not looking. What “very similar actions” do you think you’re talking about? Whether or not it makes any sense, wouldn’t it be nice if you bothered to share that with us so that we could try to make some sense of it?

    How about, for instance, the very obvious case that you must have been capable of considering? That is, a police officer who arrests a kidnapper. That is a good and just action (and remember we should’ve already tossed aside “violence” as a confused metaphor that doesn’t belong here). The reasons why enforcing such laws are not “very similar” is that it constitutes the only way one could prohibit/prevent bad and unjust actions like kidnapping. That is the relevant difference that you can’t (or won’t) figure out for yourself.

  76. Saad says

    Tony, #71

    ::sigh::
    That should be idiosyncratic.

    Anyone need a spare N?

    Yes, thank you, Tony.

    Taxes are Not violence.

  77. Al Dente says

    I think I understand EL’s reasoning.

    1. Government is violence because government is violence.

    2. Taxes are violence because the government imposes taxes and the government is violence.

    3. The IRS is violence because if you don’t pay taxes they’ll send you a letter through the Postal Service and, since the Postal Service is a governmental agency, by 1 the Postal Service is violence.

    4. Kidnappers are also violence but not in quite the same way taxes, the IRS and the Postal Service are violence.

    5. ?

    6. Profit!

  78. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @consciousness razor

    We all should agree that is not a good or just action, but not all such things are “violence.” Distinctions like that are important to make. If the kidnapped person is not injured or abused or suffers in some other way like that, then it isn’t “violence” as that term is generally understood. It’s kidnapping. With that in mind, let’s move on….

    Ok, we’re making some progress IMHO. We’re advancing steadily closer to what appears IMHO to be an absurdity where you have to admit fault, or where I give up out of sheer frustration.

    Ok, so you argue that an unlawful kidnapping may not involve violence. You argue that if a kidnap victim is merely kidnapped without suffering any further bodily harm, then there is no violence in the kidnapping.

    Ok… But Tony’s definition of “violence”, the W.H.O. definition, makes no distinction between threats of force and actual force. Surely even in your hypothetical kidnapping scenario where the kidnap victim suffers no particular bodily harm, there is still the threat of bodily harm, yes? How does that not qualify as violence under the W.H.O. definition?

    Further, I notice that you’re ignoring the “deprivation” bullet point of the W.H.O. definition. Ignoring the question of actual bodily harm vs threats of bodily harm, kidnapping necessarily involve deprivation, yes? Surely the mere state of being kidnapped should count as deprivation, yes? How does that not qualify as violence under the W.H.O. definition?

    Consciousness razor, I am again forced to question your honesty.

  79. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Al Dente:

    4. Kidnappers are also violence but not in quite the same way taxes, the IRS and the Postal Service are violence.

    What? They sure as hell are!

    I mean, if they send their ransom notes via the Postal Service they are!

  80. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Consciousness razor, I am again forced to question your honesty.

    There is no question about your honesty. Or rather, lack thereof. It is out there in black and white…
    Once you argue your final point, and not how you got there based on flawed logic and definitions, you might have a point. Now, all you have is your dishonesty.

  81. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    EnlightenmentLiberal you dishonest fuck.

    Ok, so you argue that an unlawful kidnapping may not involve violence. You argue that if a kidnap victim is merely kidnapped without suffering any further bodily harm, then there is no violence in the kidnapping.

    Yes. That’s the argument. Not the argument I made, but the argument of the person to whom you are responding.

    But Tony’s definition of “violence”, the W.H.O. definition, makes no distinction between threats of force and actual force.

    And other definitions DO make such a distinction. Consciousness razor didn’t state upfront that this was not violence according to the WHO definition.

    You have chosen post-facto the definition of violence that is least convenient to consciousness razor. Look for the word int eh other 11 definitions I provided. Deprivation isn’t in a single one of them.

    Thus, 11 to 1, you are engaging in dishonest bullshit, not consciousness razor. What the fuck do you think entitles you to do this bullshit?

    Surely even in your hypothetical kidnapping scenario where the kidnap victim suffers no particular bodily harm, there is still the threat of bodily harm, yes?

    No. Stop adding shit to other people’s arguments to make you case. When you make a case against something no one said, ***you haven’t made your case against consciousness razor***.

    EnlightenmentLiberal: Here, kiddie. I’ve got some candy for you!

    Kiddie: Yay, I’ll come into your house EnlightenmentLiberal! Wait, I don’t see any candy!

    EnlightenmentLiberal: It’s right down there in the basement of this house I bought from Giliell’s family. Just go down the stairs there. That’s right.

    [Slam. Lock.]

    Kiddie is kidnapped by EnlightenmentLiberal with no violence and no threats of violence.

    Moreover, if there actually IS candy in the basement, and kiddie doesn’t notice the locked door because, “CANDY!” the kiddie is unharmed, even psychologically.

    Yay, team!

    The fact that you can’t treat a hypothetical as a fucking hypothetical really shows.
    1. Hypothetical specifically designed to involve no violence.
    2. EnlightenmentLiberal objects that since EL has found the one definition that includes threats, surely there must be threats, because that is the only way EL can actually be right.

    Who the fuck is the dishonest one now? Consciousness razor didn’t reference threats – presumably because threats aren’t violence, that’s why we call them threats. YOU FUCKING ADDED THEM. AND YOU SPECIFICALLY ADDED THEM BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULDN’T BE THERE.

    Your inability to imagine is not an argument, you fucking Ken Ham you.

    More later. I have things to do, but don’t think I’m done with your dishonest treatment of consciousness razor.

    This is, however, in part why I consider you such a dishonest fuck for refusing to provide a specific definition f violence anywhere in this whole discussion and for your contemptible, “any of them, all of them that have been in front of me all these years” answer when other people (namely me) made it impossible for you to ignore the actual existence of definitions any longer.

    Even if you were right about the WHO definition – and you fucking aren’t you dishonest fuck, I already warned you that the definition appeared to give you more rhetorical room, but only because WHO expected people to go on and read the rest of what they had to say, and I note that you don’t reference the part of the definition that specifies what “interpersonal violence” is, even though the only part of the WHO’s definition in which kidnapping could conceivably fit is that “interpersonal violence” section – if you made it clear that you were going to live and die in the argument by one definition, at least consciousness razor would have a chance to make an argument or concede an argument according to the actual definition under discussion, not make an argument according to CR’s definition and then have you call CR dishonest because CR wasn’t using a definition you pick post-facto as a fucking gotcha.

    Your actions in this discussion are as slimy as they fucking get, EL.

    Fuck you.

    Or better yet, I hope no one fucks you. Ever.

  82. consciousness razor says

    Surely even in your hypothetical kidnapping scenario where the kidnap victim suffers no particular bodily harm, there is still the threat of bodily harm, yes?

    There could be I suppose, but what relevance does that have to anything you’re saying? If someone takes a baby, let’s say, they’re not doing anything threatening to it, nor are they planning on doing anything threatening, because they really want the baby to be safe, that’s definitely kidnapping but “violence” seems to be the wrong word for it. Even if it is appropriate, we should not confuse ourselves in thinking that using that word with that meaning in that context is essentially interchangeable with other uses of the word which have very different meanings. Instead of saying a word and letting it act as a black box for us, we would be better of just spelling out exactly what we mean in each particular case, since it has such potential to be so misleading.

    Anyway, if that does mean I don’t think the WHO’s definition is necessarily adequate for every conceivable marginal case anybody might dream up, then so be it. They may even have good pragmatic reasons for that, in terms of clearly communicating their ideas to an international audience in a way that won’t involve equivocations like yours, when literally translated or put into a different cultural framework than ours that might use different kinds of concepts — that might not be any real problem with it, even if it isn’t strictly speaking the very best approach to take on the subject. The bottom line is that there’s no disagreement about the fact that it’s unjust. And there doesn’t seem to be any substantial ethical difference to talk about.

    What I don’t see from you is what there is that’s supposedly “very similar” in a kidnapper’s actions, compared to what police officers do (and judges, juries, etc.). That looks like a substantially different ethical claim to me, or else you’re engaging in sophistry and have no actual point to make. But if not… what’s the similarity, and what is supposed to matter about that?

    Consciousness razor, I am again forced to question your honesty.

    “You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Since that’s also not in the form of a question, I suppose I’ll have to interpret it differently. Please feel free to announce to everyone what a pretentious asshole you are. That’s what you seem to be doing.

  83. jste says

    So. I’ve never actually encountered deprivation being used as a standalone term like in that WHO definition before. According to my dictionary: “The lack or denial of something considered to be a necessity”. Is that a good enough definition WRT the WHO definition of violence?

  84. says

    Crip Dyke @81:

    This is, however, in part why I consider you such a dishonest fuck for refusing to provide a specific definition f violence anywhere in this whole discussion and for your contemptible, “any of them, all of them that have been in front of me all these years” answer when other people (namely me) made it impossible for you to ignore the actual existence of definitions any longer.

    In all fairness, EL did, finally (after much evasion on their part) give us the definition of violence xe is using:

    “imprisonment of an informed adult without the adult’s consent by force”

    Of course this bizarre definition of violence doesn’t encompass actions that many people typically think of as violent, such as:
    • drone strikes in foreign countries
    • Darren Wilson’s extrajudicial execution of Michael Brown
    • the domestic abuse Rihanna faced at the hands of Chris Brown
    • the murder of Dr. George Tiller
    • war
    • the lynching of African-Americans by white supremacists
    • the deadly attacks on Charlie Hebdo
    • the genocide of Indigenous Peoples by colonists

    Much confusion would have been avoided if EL had stated-early on-what definition of violence xe was making use of.

    (Hmmm, I just realized that EL’s definition doesn’t include threats of violence)

  85. anteprepro says

    Enlightenment Liberal:

    Ok, we’re making some progress IMHO. We’re advancing steadily closer to what appears IMHO to be an absurdity where you have to admit fault, or where I give up out of sheer frustration.

    I swear, I have sat through movie marathons with less projection than I have seen from you in these threads.

  86. says

    @Tony, 84

    I’m curious if you are…serious in your statement that you think EL was giving a definition in that post. It seems EL was giving something that would fit some definition.

    Therefore it would be only one thing (among many things) that would fit the definition.

  87. says

    brianpansky @86:

    I’m curious if you are…serious in your statement that you think EL was giving a definition in that post. It seems EL was giving something that would fit some definition.

    I was serious.
    Your comments have me rethinking that.

  88. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It seems EL was giving something that would fit some definition.

    It was a fuckwitted example, as somebody who thought they should be able to murder, rob, rape, (substitute in any other crime) didn’t consent to being imprisoned, therefore it was violence. Rather than the need of society to reluctantly protect itself from arrogant persons without empathy and an conscious about doing wrong.

  89. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony
    Sorry. Seemingly I wasn’t clear enough yet. I never intended:

    “imprisonment of an informed adult without the adult’s consent by force”

    I meant that as a noncontroversial example of violence, not a definition of the word “violence”. Apparently that is a controversial example (as evidenced by consciousness razor’s disagreement).

    I said many of Crip Dyke’s definitions are fine. If you want to pick one, ok, let’s pick the one you Tony provided. The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. I’m still a little confused about that definition, as expressed in post 72, post 74, and post 78.

  90. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor:

    if that does mean I don’t think the WHO’s definition is necessarily adequate for every conceivable marginal case anybody might dream up, then so be it. They may even have good pragmatic reasons for that,

    They do. Primarily it’s about their funding sources and financial accountability. If they want to have an anti-violence program, they don’t want to have to argue corner cases to be able to spend money where spending the money clearly ameliorates harm even if the manner of harm prevented is only arguably violence.

    The WHO is clearly and specifically trying to write a definition inclusive of many possible corner cases because the WHO mandate isn’t actually to prevent violence, it’s to prevent harm and to aid in recovery from harm. Thus their definition of violence is focussed more on harm than on “violence” as any of the dictionaries I cited defines violence. You note that their definition doesn’t use any of the familiar phrases that frequently appear in the 4 dictionaries + Google (which takes the form of a dictionary entry, even if it doesn’t label itself “the Google Dictionary”) I cited.

    Even here though, they say that all of violence, or at least everything that they are going to consider violence for the purpose of their intervention programs and their research, falls into 3 collectively comprehensive categories…and when you take some of those corner cases to the 3 subcategories, you can find that these corner cases of the original definition don’t fit any of the subcategories.

    According to WHO, those are not violence for the purpose of its definition. And yet, even though I identified this to EL earlier and EL clearly read that (this I know because he tried to use it as a gotcha), EL didn’t compare your scenario to the subcategories as a corner case that might be clarified there.

    Why? I don’t know, but I’m told on good authority that when EL’s doing something that makes EL an asshat, EL’s doing it for a reason.

  91. says

    Apologies to EL. I think I see where I went wrong parsing this:

    Most of the definitions of “violence” posted by Crip Dyke sound good to me. I’m currently working on the assumption that “imprisonment of an informed adult without the adult’s consent by force” is violence.

  92. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I said many of Crip Dyke’s definitions are fine. If you want to pick one, ok, let’s pick the one you Tony provided. The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. I’m still a little confused about that definition, as expressed in post 72, post 74, and post 78.

    Hrrrmm?

    Maybe Google Translate will help:

    I said many of Crip Dyke’s definitions are fine. If you want me to tell you which definition I’m using so that we can go forward with some certainty, the WHO definition looks satisfactory.

    I therefore declare that the definition provided by WHO is the one I’m using.

    But I don’t understand that definition. So I’m not “using” it in the sense that it guides my argument. I’ll just make any argument I want and say it’s supported by the WHO definition because even though I don’t understand the definition provided by WHO, I do understand the definitions provided by Google and by 4 dictionaries and all of them would clearly rule out every argument I want to make.

    Thus I kind of have to say I’m using the definition I don’t understand, because wherever I do understand the definition of violence, the definition clearly indicates that I am wrong.

    Shit, that was helpful!

    This Google Translate thing is really getting better all the time, innit?

  93. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke: Good points,

    And you could compare to the APA definition of violence, where the goal is to look at violence as either a symptomatic behavior of something larger, a problem behavior to correct, or as a clear set of things experienced by a victim that would have a certain psychological impact.

    Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder.
    Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to violent media, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to see other people’s actions as hostile even when they’re not. Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding.
    Adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology

    So, another consistent with the dictionaries and how the rest of us understand the world “violence”.

  94. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I feel compelled to add:

    How the fuck someone can be honest while stating

    the definition that guides my argument is the one about which I’m confused

    I will never know.

  95. anteprepro says

    **Also, very irked by the fact that the WHO doesn’t really define “deprivation” and “maldevelopment”. I imagine that both are linked to the only concrete example they give that comes close to fitting the bill: Child neglect. I also imagine certain forms of child abuse could be based on depriving the child, and certain forms of child abuse could also lead to maldevelopment without necessarily causing direct physical harm, and possibly no psychological harm. **

  96. consciousness razor says

    Why? I don’t know, but I’m told on good authority that when EL’s doing something that makes EL an asshat, EL’s doing it for a reason.

    Well, everything happens for a reason, dontcha know. There’s probably a fairly trivial derivation of that from his quasi-transcendental Argument for Presuppositionalism in the previous thunderdome, if anybody buys a word of it. But it would take even less work to simply wait for EL to tell us exactly how he is right no matter what, since that’s apparently the only point of any of this. Alternatively, he might assert again that we are liars, pretend to ridicule us, act as if he has genuine questions, make a big show of how befuddled he is by things that are clear to everyone and their dog, and so forth. Whatever happens, I think it’ll be a long wait before we get anything satisfying out of this bullshitter.

  97. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @anteprepro

    Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder.

    Incarceration for failure to file an income tax report or a fraudulent income tax report can last years. I’m quite willing to put incarceration lasting years in the same category of “extreme forms of aggression” with assault, rape, and murder in terms of the level of harm.

    Violence has many causes, including frustration, exposure to violent media, violence in the home or neighborhood and a tendency to see other people’s actions as hostile even when they’re not.

    Clearly. Just like the “cause” of the IRS is that we want to collect taxes to create a better world. I assume most professionals would also include self defense as one of the motivations and causes of violence. The motivations and causes of taxes and tax enforcement are quite similar IMHO to the motivations and causes of self defense. (Not the same, but similar.)

    Certain situations also increase the risk of aggression, such as drinking, insults and other provocations and environmental factors like heat and overcrowding.

    Again clearly. From a detached clinical perspective, failure to file an income tax report is like “insults and other provocations” in that in certain circumstances one can reasonably expect that performing these behaviors will cause others to be violent towards oneself.

    Again, not seeing how this new definition of “violence” excludes an unlawful kidnapping for ransom nor the lawful imprisonment of a tax evader.

  98. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh, PS:

    Violence has many causes, including […] exposure to violent media

    Hasn’t this been demonstrated wrong time and time again? Generation culture wars. Violent media and violent video games are the rock and roll music of our generation. And you’re trying to cite this as authoritative? ~sigh~

  99. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @anteprepro,

    Your #85 was pure gold. I somehow missed it earlier, but let me praise you for it now… and promise I will plagiarize it later.

    (That’s a threat, by-the-by.)

  100. says

    EL @97:

    I’m quite willing to put incarceration lasting years in the same category of “extreme forms of aggression” with assault, rape, and murder in terms of the level of harm.

    Oh fuck you. To infinity and beyond.

  101. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, I guess I’m done engaging with consciousness razor too on this topic. They just clearly endorsed the position that an unlawful kidnapping for ransom (absent any particular physical bodily injury) doesn’t count as violence. I don’t know what to say to that.

  102. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony in 100
    What? Come on – the list included “assault”. You’re going to say in good faith that the general category of “assault” is so much worse than imprisonment lasting years that it’s not reasonable to put the two in the same category? I don’t know what to say to that. It’s incredibly wrong.

  103. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @anyone who loves to delight in EnlightenmentLiberal’s ongoing idiocy:

    Hasn’t this been demonstrated wrong time and time again? Generation culture wars. Violent media and violent video games are the rock and roll music of our generation. And you’re trying to cite this as authoritative? ~sigh~

    Was it inobvious to anyone **other than** EL that the APA’s definition was being cited not “as an authority” but very specifically to corroborate the argument that it is reasonable to understand the WHO definition of violence as an operational definition by an agency whose agenda in creating the definition includes more than mere clarity in communication?

    Wasn’t it plainly obvious, by anteprepro’s agreement with me and the context that APA was cited as an example of another agency that had reasons beyond clear communication in mind while formulating its definitions? Wasn’t the fact that i discussed the lack of common phrases between the WHO definition and all the dictionaries (who did share common phrases) and the fact that the APA definition clearly also lacks phrases in common with the dictionaries obvious to everyone else?

    I mean, I am Groot!, Batman, EL thinks the APA was being cited for its authority and not for its distorting agenda? There is no end to the stupid, is there?

  104. anteprepro says

    I’m sorry Enlightenment Liberal that the APA isn’t a credible source for you.

    I assume you are too good and brilliant for scientific literature as well.

    http://psi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/81.short

    Well-supported theory delineates why and when exposure to media violence increases aggression and violence. Media violence produces short-term increases by priming existing aggressive scripts and cognitions, increasing physiological arousal, and triggering an automatic tendency to imitate observed behaviors. Media violence produces long-term effects via several types of learning processes leading to the acquisition of lasting (and automatically accessible) aggressive scripts, interpretational schemas, and aggression-supporting beliefs about social behavior, and by reducing individuals’ normal negative emotional responses to violence (i.e., desensitization).
    Certain characteristics of viewers (e.g., identification with aggressive characters), social environments (e.g., parental influences), and media content (e.g., attractiveness of the perpetrator) can influence the degree to which media violence affects aggression, but there are some inconsistencies in research results. This research also suggests some avenues for preventive intervention (e.g., parental supervision, interpretation, and control of children’s media use). However, extant research on moderators suggests that no one is wholly immune to the effects of media violence.
    Recent surveys reveal an extensive presence of violence in modern media. Furthermore, many children and youth spend an inordinate amount of time consuming violent media. Although it is clear that reducing exposure to media violence will reduce aggression and violence, it is less clear what sorts of interventions will produce a reduction in exposure. The sparse research literature suggests that counterattitudinal and parental-mediation interventions are likely to yield beneficial effects, but that media literacy interventions by themselves are unsuccessful.

    You’re doing a real stellar job, EL. Maybe just stick to the word games, though.

  105. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    What? Come on – the list included “assault”. You’re going to say in good faith that the general category of “assault” is so much worse than imprisonment lasting years that it’s not reasonable to put the two in the same category?

    Note that any imprisonment, imprisonment by definition is claimed by EL to fit the definition of violence.

    When Tony! objects to this, EL changes it to “imprisonment lasting years” when that qualification never had any presence in the previous discussion and had nothing to do with posts to which Tony! was directly responding.

    And EL thinks Tony! is the one with a problem here?

    Shit, I don’t claim to read Tony!’s mind. Very reasonably he could even be saying “fuck you to infinity and beyond” on the basis of EL’s light-speed goalpost shifting.

    Now, he might also believe that a 180 month sentence still doesn’t qualify as violence, but you don’t know that from what Tony! said. He could fully agree with EL’s dishonestly revised position and still tell EL to fuck off for dishonestly revising in the middle of what Tony! had attempted to make an honest discussion.

    But EL can’t come up with any reason for why Tony! might say such a thing but that Tony! doesn’t agree with the brand new point EL just retroactively discovered.

    I called EL’s actions in this discussion “slime” earlier.

    I was wrong. I apologize, to PZ especially. I’m sure that any biologist that frequents Pharyngula loves slime a lot more than that biologist loves the kinds of dishonest argument EL has employed here.

  106. jste says

    I’m quite willing to put incarceration lasting years in the same category of “extreme forms of aggression” with assault, rape, and murder in terms of the level of harm.

    Putting someone in prison causes the same amount of harm as fucking MURDER? Are you sure? Because if you didn’t mean to suggest that, you should probably express your point more clearly. A lot more clearly.

  107. Grewgills says

    EL
    Some dozens of comments ago I brought up the WHO definition of violence and also pointed out how the IRS actually enforces tax evasion and haven’t seen any response. You seem to accept the WHO definition now so we can proceed from there.
    The IRS does incarcerate some 2000 or so people a year for tax evasion. Almost all of those people are small business owners or some form of sole proprietorship and the vast majority of the remainder are involved in some criminal enterprise that the government can’t prove (selling drugs etc) and so are busted on tax evasion. That leaves the vast majority of the 300 million or so of us threatened by fines and garnishment of wages should we evade taxes. Even then the IRS ignores the small fry, certainly those making less than the median income because it isn’t worth their time to chase after small change. Perhaps you can restate your assertion that “taxes are (threat of) violence” to “taxes are (threat of) violence to the small segment of the population that are business owners without wage income that make over $50,000/year.” That would be much closer to accurate.

  108. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke: Well, I will admit the authority of the APA was a factor, just not the sole one (to do so I would have to be saying that the APA somehow is more authoritative than the WHO, which I don’t believe and I have no idea how any would even begin to argue either way on that topic anyway). But the idea that Enlightenment Liberal somehow scoffs at the idea that “X is factor in Y”, with no actual support for his opposition to this one claim, and immediately uses this to dismiss any assumed authority of the APA, which is actually a pretty damn good and respected psychological scientific society, is just the cherry on top of the giant shit sundae that EL has been constantly serving us. At least in my eyes. He managed to somehow, amidst all the handwringing about definitions, start picking a random fight with science, using half-remembered conclusions coming from god knows where. Oh, yes, violent media is not the sole cause of violence. Violent video games aren’t the fucking devil when there have been violent movies out since movies have been a thing. But yes, there is research on the subject, and it isn’t all “nothing to see here folks” either.

    Now the real question is whether EL will admit to error, ignore it, or begin a new set of word games. The suspense, it kills me.

  109. Jacob Schmidt says

    They’re now incoherent (from pain or morphine, and sometimes both because there are limits to how much morphine you can legally administer), they’re never going to walk, eat food, or feel the touch of an ungloved hand again. Machines are breathing for them, circulating their blood, and hydrating and nourishing them. Tubes enter them all over. Bloody sores that penetrate to their bones cover their body (sometime, do an image search for “decubitus ulcer”). This isn’t, in all probability, how they wanted to die. But then they do die, despite “heroic” efforts by nurses and doctors (who feel like villains and who ponder primum non nocere and if that aphorism has any meaning any more), and the family is left to collect a broken and emaciated body that barely resembles their relative – or a human, for that matter – any longer while the staff are left to hope that the undertakers are able to make them look okay for the funeral and say things like, “they aren’t in pain any more.” Until that bed is filled again by another patient who is functionally identical, usually within a few hours.

    Ugh, reminds me of a piece written by Scott Alexander.

    You will become bedridden, unable to walk or even to turn yourself over. You will become completely dependent on nurse assistants to intermittently shift your position to avoid pressure ulcers. When they inevitably slip up, your skin develops huge incurable sores that can sometimes erode all the way to the bone, and which are perpetually infected with foul-smelling bacteria. Your limbs will become practically vestigial organs, like the appendix, and when your vascular disease gets too bad, one or more will be amputated, sacrifices to save the host. Urinary and fecal continence disappear somewhere in the process, so you’re either connected to catheters or else spend a while every day lying in a puddle of your own wastes until the nurses can help you out. The digestive system isn’t too happy either by this point, so you can either have a tube plugged directly into your stomach or just skip the middleman and have an IV line feeding nutrients into your bloodstream.

    Somewhere in the process your mind very quietly and without fanfare gives up the ghost. It starts with forgetting a couple of little things, and progresses until you have no idea what’s going on ever. In medical jargon, healthy people are “alert and oriented x 3″, which means oriented to person (you know your name), oriented to time (you know what day/month/year it is), and oriented to place (you know you’re in a hospital). My patients who have the sorts of issues I mentioned in the last paragraph are generally alert and oriented x0. They don’t remember their own names, they don’t know where they are or what they’re doing there, and they think it’s the 1930s or the 1950s or don’t even have a concept of years at all. When you’re alert and oriented x0, the world becomes this terrifying place where you are stuck in some kind of bed and can’t move and people are sticking you with very large needles and forcing tubes down your throat and you have no idea why or what’s going on.

    So of course you start screaming and trying to attack people and trying to pull the tubes and IV lines out. Every morning when I come in to work I have to check the nurses’ notes for what happened the previous night, and every morning a couple of my patients have tried to pull all of their tubes and lines out. If it’s especially bad they try to attack the staff, and although the extremely elderly are really bad at attacking people this is nevertheless Unacceptable Behavior and they have to be restrained ie tied down to the bed. A presumably more humane alternative sometimes used instead or in addition is to just drug you up on all of those old-timey psychiatric medications that actual psychiatrists don’t use anymore because of their bad reputation.

  110. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @anteprepro:

    Well, I will admit the authority of the APA was a factor,

    Yeah, after i posted that I had second thoughts. It occurred to me that you may have been attempting to provide another illustration of operational definitions (as opposed to dictionary definitions), but choosing the example of the APA in part **because of** their credibility and authority. It occurred to me you might want to do that because citing a definition from a no-name activist group might prove motivated operational definitions exist, but not that we can expect to see them even amongst the output of large, credible organizations.

    To that extent, the APA’s authority and credibility might very much have been in your mind.

    Now it seems you’re saying that their authority was in your mind, but without quite revealing how/why.

    Am I on the right track?

    Was a further reason, but a reason not incompatible with earlier reasons I’ve proffered as potential motivations of yours, that the APA definition would be “just as” authoritative as WHO, but given its different motivations, the definition is written in a much more restrictive way, and thus there’s no reason to pick WHO’s definition with wording that provides EL rhetorical wiggle-room over APA’s definition which would appear not to? (Though, of course, we all know that EL can apparently fit incarceration into the definition of “ice cream”.)

    I thought it was quite obvious that you were extending the point of “motivated reasoning,” but I concede that I was wrong to say you did not choose the APA for its authority.

    I still feel comfortable, though I will retract should you inform me I’m wrong, saying that you weren’t choosing the APA definition to literally, almost by definition, be the one authoritative definition to which we should universally defer in this conversation. You weren’t appealing to the APA’s “authority” in that sense, I don’t think.

    Am I wrong?

  111. anteprepro says

    Also, I can’t even read 97 without rolling my eyes so hard that, for about 2 seconds, they could have been technically designated to be turbines.

    The sheer strain needed in order to make those responses make any sense in light of the quoted passages would make Atlas beg for mercy.

    The responses given make you wonder whether the greater deficit is in human empathy or reading comprehension. It makes you wonder whether your greatest offense is taken at the continued, sloppy trivialization of the real, cruel violence described, or at the sheer amount of obstinate inanity on display throughout all of this.

    The immediate follow-up to it all being a Quixotic charge against a scientific windmill just makes you wonder whether you should laugh or cry about it all.

  112. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I love how EL literally almost by definition cannot help but put words in others’ mouths. EL has been repeatedly criticized for doing it, yet keeps right on doing it. To wit:

    @Tony in 100
    What? Come on – the list included “assault”. You’re going to say in good faith that the general category of “assault” is so much worse than imprisonment lasting years that it’s not reasonable to put the two in the same category? I don’t know what to say to that. It’s incredibly wrong.

    No. Tony! is not “going to say” that.

    Tony! is not saying that.

    Tony!, almost by definition, is saying

    Oh fuck you. To infinity and beyond.

    Now, I don’t have a PhD in English,

    …and I’ll defer to the well-supported judgements of more educated authority if necessary,…

    but I’m fairly certain that

    the general category of “assault” is so much worse than imprisonment lasting years that it’s not reasonable to put the two in the same category

    and

    Oh fuck you. To infinity and beyond.

    are phrases that are not, in fact, synonymous.

  113. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke:

    To that extent, the APA’s authority and credibility might very much have been in your mind.
    Now it seems you’re saying that their authority was in your mind, but without quite revealing how/why.
    Am I on the right track?
    Was a further reason, but a reason not incompatible with earlier reasons I’ve proffered as potential motivations of yours, that the APA definition would be “just as” authoritative as WHO, but given its different motivations, the definition is written in a much more restrictive way, and thus there’s no reason to pick WHO’s definition with wording that provides EL rhetorical wiggle-room over APA’s definition which would appear not to? (Though, of course, we all know that EL can apparently fit incarceration into the definition of “ice cream”.)

    Essentially this, yes. I saw the APA as an organization comparable (roughly) to the WHO, and also saw that logic similar to your explanation of why the WHO had the definition they have could also explain why the APA had theirs (and why it more closely matched the dictionary definitions).

    I still feel comfortable, though I will retract should you inform me I’m wrong, saying that you weren’t choosing the APA definition to literally, almost by definition, be the one authoritative definition to which we should universally defer in this conversation. You weren’t appealing to the APA’s “authority” in that sense, I don’t think.

    This is accurate. As much as I love psychology, I don’t think it would have exclusive rights to defining violence for all fields or for the laymen. But, it does serve as yet another version, another understanding of “violence”, that is inconsistent with EL’s and yet another “vote” for the more understanding of the word.

  114. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Oh, shit, I can’t stop laughing.

    Anteprepro, the sarcasm and mockery in your #111 are so dense, I believe not just EL’s arguments, but even EL’s dignity has no chance of escape.

  115. says

    EL @102:

    What? Come on – the list included “assault”. You’re going to say in good faith that the general category of “assault” is so much worse than imprisonment lasting years that it’s not reasonable to put the two in the same category? I don’t know what to say to that. It’s incredibly wrong.

    I do not think incarceration*-for any length of time-bears any similarity to assault, rape, or murder.
    I’d ask what definition of assault and incarceration you’re working with, but I suspect I’d be waiting a while.

    *Solitary confinement being an exception

  116. anteprepro says

    Last sentence should have read “for the more [plain] understanding of the word”. I always omit random fucking words.

    Also: We can’t win. Every definition contains words in it. Words that themselves need to defined. And because Enlightenment Liberal has a desperate need to be right, they will scramble to find one word that they can flip around or stretch out to be as broad as possible, goading us into going one level deeper into a debate about a brand new word, and its definitions. Define violence one way, debate about deprivation. Define it another, debate aggression. Leave the definition open and then just watch the handwringing over the original word go on and on and on. It is all a trap. A prison. A….

    THIS DISCUSSION IS VIOLENCE

  117. says

    anteprepro @116:

    It is all a trap. A prison. A….
    THIS DISCUSSION IS VIOLENCE

    Great.
    If this is a trap and we’re all in prison, can I please have a cell as far away from EnlightenmentLiberal as possible?

  118. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke:

    Anteprepro, the sarcasm and mockery in your #111 are so dense, I believe not just EL’s arguments, but even EL’s dignity has no chance of escape.

    Thank you kindly. I apparently can make black holes now. Which, if that isn’t a superpower that an existing superhero has, someone really dropped the ball.

  119. anteprepro says

    Tony!:

    If this is a trap and we’re all in prison, can I please have a cell as far away from EnlightenmentLiberal as possible?

    Or you could just ask to exchange your prison stay for getting physically assaulted. Violence is violence is violence. I’m sure Enlightenment Liberal has the exchange rate worked out somewhere.

  120. chigau (違う) says

    Beatrice #140 in the previous TDome.
    re: screaming and threatening with axe:
    did NOT work on the dirty dishes or laundry
    (I had to actually wash them)
    did NOT work on the neighbour’s noisy party
    (I didn’t actually try it outside my imagination.)
    (another wee dram and ear-plugs worked)
    It DID work on the 8cm of ice that was on my sidewalk.
    (although that was muted screaming and a shovel)
    The router fix must have been a coincidence.
    or serendipity.
    .
    Serendipity is a lovely word.

  122. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Grewgills
    I think I responded earlier, but I’ll respond again with new content.

    There’s two ways to address this – in the context of specific US laws, and in the context of the most permissive, least violent, tax enforcement scheme. Because I’m feeling lazy right now, I’m only going to address US law, and not a hypothetical most-permissive tax, least violent, tax enforcement scheme. If you want, we can talk about that in later posts.

    Let’s consider this. I’m a mere salaried employee of a large company. My taxes are withheld by my company. What if I simply “refused to pay taxes”, including all of the associated rituals, including filing an income tax report. What would happen.

    Honestly, I don’t know specifically offhand. I’m not a tax protester. I had to do some digging.

    U.S.C. 7203:

    Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 years” for “1 year”.

    So, if I simply refused to pay my taxes, including the associated rituals such as file an income tax report, the law states that I can be punished with up to 1 year of incarceration.

    The question before us is whether this is an empty threat or a true threat. I agree that empty threats should not count as threats for the purposes of the WHO definition. However, if it’s a true threat, then it should count for the purposes of the WHO definition.

    I agree with you Gregwills that very few people are prosecuted under this law. I think the proper thing to take away from this is not that it’s an empty threat. Rather, I think the proper thing to take away is that very few people are foolish enough to call the government’s bluff and face its wrath.

    Consider this. Suppose that I submitted a simple letter to the IRS in place of an income tax report, and simply stated that I refused to pay income taxes. Suppose further that I responded to any future correspondence in a timely manner, and that I showed up to court on time if commanded. However, suppose I also continued to merely state my simple refusal to pay taxes in each correspondence and court appearance. I’m pretty sure that eventually the IRS employee or tax court judge is going to get sick of it, and refer me to criminal prosecution. Maybe even then the first prosecution won’t land me in jail, but I’m pretty sure that if I continue long enough, I am going to get sentenced to jail. Honestly, I suspect as soon as I’m in front of a judge in tax court and I simply state my refusal to pay taxes, jail is going to happen rather quite soon rather than later.

    Thus, I have to consider that the threats from the IRS against me, a simple salaried employee, are true threats, and thus it counts as violence under the WHO definition.

    PS:
    I used several sources, including this one, in my quickie research. I confirmed most of its relevant citations.
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#religion
    The relevant takeaway I presented above.

  123. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony in 115
    Which definitions am I using?

    For assault: Either actual physical legal battery, or merely legal assault. I don’t think it makes a difference in this case.

    For incarceration: The normal process by which convicted criminals are put into prison / jail and kept there. I hope that’s sufficient. It’s a pretty common concept.

    I do not think incarceration*-for any length of time-bears any similarity to assault, rape, or murder.

    *Solitary confinement being an exception

    And I politely disagree. I think that putting someone in prison for even a year is a far worse harm than a mere punch in the face – solitary confinement or not. It’s not even in the same ballpark. If you start breaking bones with the punch or causing other lasting physical damage, then IMHO it’s starting to get comparable, but not all assault and battery leaves permanent damage.

    Apparently you disagree. Not only do you disagree, but apparently you seemingly feel that getting punched in the face is massively worse than being incarcerated for a year, so much worse that I am a horrible person for saying the two are comparable and in the same ballpark in terms of harm. I have nothing more to say.

    PS: I do agree that solitary confinement is much worse than normal incarceration in a normal prison with a normal prison population.

  124. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And I politely disagree. I think that putting someone in prison for even a year is a far worse harm than a mere punch in the face – solitary confinement or not. It’s not even in the same ballpark. If you start breaking bones with the punch or causing other lasting physical damage, then IMHO it’s starting to get comparable, but not all assault and battery leaves permanent damage.

    And again EL shows incompetence or dishonesty by suddenly switching the question to one about whether something constitutions **harm** and not whether something constitutes **violence**.

    A day may come when the garrulous idiocy of EnlightenmentLiberal fails, when EL forsakes dishonesty and forges bonds for all goalposts, but it is not this day.

    An hour of clear definitions and honest argument, when the age of wanking comes, collapsing down! But it is not this day!

  125. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I have never been more self-amused at my placement of a comma than I am by my #124.

    Whatever that says about me, I’m not sure it’s good.

  126. says

    CD @124:

    And again EL shows incompetence or dishonesty by suddenly switching the question to one about whether something constitutions **harm** and not whether something constitutes **violence**.

    Good catch. I missed that.
    At this point, I think it’s safe to say further discussion on this subject with EL is pointless.

  127. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony in 126
    Think about it for a sec. See what you wrote in post 100. Why did you object? Didn’t you object because you felt that I was unreasonably comparing violence X against violence Y? Why did you feel the comparison was unreasonable? Surely because you had a gut reaction that one of the kinds of violence was more harmful than the other. Of course one compares one kind of violence against another kind of violence in terms of the harm done. That’s why violence is bad, right? Because it does harm?

    Please don’t fall for Crip Dyke’s dishonest word games.

  128. chigau (違う) says

    EnlightenmentLiberal accuses someone else of dishonest word games.
    …
    I’m for bed.

  129. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    It’s like no one here has ever seen a radical Marxist before. (Radical Marxist in analysis, not in policy proposals.) Or I guess that most people here don’t care enough about the difference of a radical Marxist vs a libertarian, and have equal disdain for both. Dunno. It’s been fascinating nonetheless.

  131. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Crip Dyke @ 125

    I have never been more self-amused at my placement of a comma than I am by my #124.
    Whatever that says about me, I’m not sure it’s good.

    This just made following along with this…erm…discussion…entirely worthwhile. :D

  132. Grewgills says

    @EL #122
    Setting aside whether minimum security prison qualifies as violence for the moment, it’s cute that you think that lying to the IRS is something that only a few people do. Do you really think that is why there are so few prosecutions? Virtually every waiter and bartender I ever worked with under reported their tips. That is officially tax fraud. People under report whenever they think they can get away with it. In the rare instance when they are audited they are fined and their wages garnished. Garnishment of wages and fines are not violence by any reasonable definition. The vast majority of people are in zero danger of being incarcerated if they lie on their taxes. Now, if someone is idiotic enough to take the course of action you suggest and actually send the IRS a note saying I refuse to pay (because I’m a sovereign citizen or whatever nonsense) rather than simply filling out false information or sending in no return they will gather attention. If they are self employed they may face incarceration. If they are employed by a business, they will be fined and their wages garnished. That is the way it works in the US. Even in the rare cases when the IRS can’t collect via garnishment and resorts to prosecution the violators are sent to minimum security prisons. You may want to pretend that it is otherwise, but it isn’t. Incarceration is only in play for relatively large violations* that cannot be taken care of via fines and garnishment, so for a small minority of citizens. That is why there are so few prosecutions.
    Seriously think about this for a moment. We are a nation of over 300 million and the average number of prosecutions over the past 10 years is less than 3000 per year. That is less than 0.001% of the population. Even a VERY generous estimate puts it at less than 1% of people who owe taxes each year. Do you really think that the rate of people evading taxes is anywhere near so low? Can you honestly look at those numbers and say that this is any real threat of imprisonment for tax evasion to an average wage earner that lies on their taxes? If you can look at what is actually happening and still persist in saying that taxation in the US is enforced by threat of incarceration to any but a very small minority, then you are being dishonest or willfully ignorant.

    * Incarceration costs north of $26,000 per year. How much sense does it pay to lock up someone for underpaying by a couple thousand?

  133. Grewgills says

    @ EL cont.
    By way of illustration, there were 4.7 murders per 100,000 people in the US for the last recorded year. Less than 1 person per 100,000 was prosecuted for tax evasion. Do you really think there were less than 1 tax evaders per 100,000 in the same time frame? Less than 10 per 100,000? Less than 100 per 100,000? Do you really think the IRS is threatening the average tax evader with incarceration in any meaningful sense?

  134. rq says

    anteprepro

    I saw the APA as an organization comparable (roughly) to the WHO

    Yeah, but they’re just organizations, and who says they are legitimate organizations? Organizational legitimacy is a matter of degrees, you know. And if these organizations don’t use the definitions EL (an organization of one) prefers, well, then they’re just not legitimate enough!

    Also, I get the feeling that EnlightenmentLiberal is thinking of US prisons all the time. Well, I would like to introduce them to a prison in Norway. I believe that there are jobs that are more violent than a stay in a prison like that, if we consider available amenities and thought put into one’s comfort levels. Or is it the deprivation of physical freedom (and the freedom to not follow the rules of society) that actually constitutes the violence?

  135. AlexanderZ says

    Important PSA:
    Borscht + salted-fish-under-beet + beet salad = Happiness ❤
    __________________
    In unrelated news – my teeth hurt and I won’t have them pulled out until next week. :(

  136. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Gregwills
    Your argument is based on a false equivocation. 1- There are many people who regularly lie and cheat on their taxes. However, once they’re caught, they submit to the authority of the IRS for that particular lie or cheat. They pay the fine, and they do not go to prison. 2- There are a few people who do lie and cheat, and when caught by the IRS, they do not back down. They do not submit to the authority of the IRS. Those foolish few do go to prison, like Kent Hovind.

    The fact that the government is very lax and offers many chances to repent before incarceration does not make the original threats empty. The original threats are still true threats regardless of whether the government offers one many chances to submit to their authority before initiating violence. They are true threats, and true threats of the right kind, such as true threats of incarceration, do constitute violence.

    PS: Minimum security prison is violence.

  137. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Talking to marxists is like talking to liberturds. All slogan, twisted meanings, and no EVIDENCE whatsoever. And they can’t ever, ever, be wrong. Dishonesty all the way down, typical of presuppositionalists. So I just point a laugh at their fuckwittery. Nothing more need be done.

  138. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Prison isn’t violence. Is your “reward” for breaking the social contract. YOU don’t decide whether or you not you get to obey every law. SOCIETY makes that determination. Don’t like it? Move on…

  139. says

    Daz
    I acknowledge your pain and your position. I still cannot agree with you.
    You and EL have failed to show that taxes actually in and on themselves cause harm.
    And that all harm is violence. Taxes can cause harm. VAT is an example of a tax that unfairly burdens poor people who have to use all their money for their daily needs and who often cannot satisfy those essential needs. Taking a chunk out of their buying power actually harms them. For middle class people they might still be considered unfair, because they still spend a much larger chunk of their income on goods as opposed to rich people, but it is hard to argue that they actually harm you when you are well able to satisfy all your needs and have a chunk of disposable income to spend on stuff you don’t need but want. For rich people we can safely conclude that they don’t actually cost them anything. At some point it becomes rather irrelevant whether something costs 100.000 or 120.000. So the thing in and on itself is not harmful, it is harmful in combination with poor people and unfair since it’s a rather blunt intrument that actually burdens you the more the lower your income is.
    That’s why it is IMO unjustified to call taxes “harmful” as such and especially not “violent”.
    Also, everything CD has said. I don’t need to rephrase that clumsily.

    EL

    And I politely disagree. You’re welcome to that interpretation that I’m “shitting on actual victims of violence”. I do not share it. It seems that I’m the one standing up for actual victims of violence which you choose to neglect, such as every person sitting in prison for tax evasion.

    Again, let me emphasize that the incarceration of tax evaders is less severe and less bad than many other kinds of violence, but it’s still violence. I’d also like to say that imprisoning tax evaders is generally justified and good for society, and I support it.

    So, you’re standing up for the victims of violence, but you also think it’s a justifiable and good sort of violence. You’re making less sense by the minute.
    Which does still not make your point “taxes = violence”, even if we can agree that prison can be violence.

    Tax enforcement includes incarceration, and incarceration is violence.

    Water includes radon, and radon is poisonous.

    Government cannot exist without taxes and tax enforcement – it is the fundamental nature and definition of government. One cannot have effective tax enforcement without violence according to the current facts of human nature and the current facts of our technological development. Perhaps in a Star Trek future with replicators and free energy taxes would no longer be required, but we do not live in a scifi economic utopia.

    So, taxes are unchangeably violent in nature except when they may not be. Words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. All of them.

    Incarceration for failure to file an income tax report or a fraudulent income tax report can last years.

    Well, maybe the USA are that fucked up, but right here that’s pure bullshit.
    Failure to file an income tax report usually does NOT lead to incarceration. It leads to a nasty letter. And then it leads to them estimating your taxes, ignoring all possible deductions and sending you a bill. I know it because it happened to the Giliell household. And once we handed in our tax report we got money back…
    Failing to hand in a report obviously leads to people reminding you to do so. Refusing to do so leads to further steps.
    Fraudulent of course implies intent, not just making a mistake.
    Now see the point below. You’re refusing to pay your bill after you consumed the goods because you don’t want to. It’s the intentional refusal to pay taxes that leads to incarceration. And honestly, if you’re Uli Höneß and refused to pay more than 28 MILLION EURO in taxes, that means you deprived children of food. Literally in the old sense. And what’s more you made their poor parents pay for the services you used to make all that money.

    ++++
    Also, to make this one thing clear: If you have any income, you have made use of services that were paid for with taxes. You took those goods and used it. They come with a bill. That bill is a very complicated form, but it’s still basically a bill.
    You might whine that “you had no choice but to use those services”, but guess what, you also have no choice to breathing. Humans are a social species and will therefore always have common goods and common rules. To call that fact “violence” is to call each and every human interaction violence, because they always come with a “bill” even if that bill is not in a monetary form. You never get to make a choice that is free of consequences. You always make a choice because it looks better than the alternative. If I hold the door for the next person, the price is that I lose some time, but I gain in terms of improving society and my neighbours’ opinion of me. If I let it slam into their face the price is that they now think I’m an asshole and will probably not be nice to me, but I gain a few seconds.

    anteprepro
    You’ve forgotten speed limits and probably also food safety regulations.

    +++
    Also, I don’t understand the “salted” joke. You’re very violently oppressing me.

  141. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    *playing to the lurkers*
    EL, repeating fuckwittery verbatim does not make your argument better or stronger. It just shows that your justification for your fuckwittery is wrong. And if you won’t consider that you might be wrong, you provide prima facie evidence that you likely are wrong.

  142. rq says

    Giliell

    Also, I don’t understand the “salted” joke. You’re very violently oppressing me.

    Yeah, but you pointing that out is violent, too.
    And to clarify, because I can’t tell if you’re being serious about not understanding or not: They sound the same: salted / assaulted, almonds can be salted, and Saad was also assaulted.
    Forgive me for being so violent if you actually do get the joke, and are just being unjustly violent by telling us you don’t.

  144. opposablethumbs says

    chigau, re dS, I do too.

    I’m beginning to feel this thread may be invaded by the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog at any moment. (“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being oppressed!”)

  145. opposablethumbs says

    PS the above in no way intended to diss Daz or Giliell; also hat off to CD for your patience.

  146. anteprepro says

    Speaking of the APA, let me drag even more psychology into this.

    A core of this “taxation is violence” argument is the implication that the only or key reason people pay taxes is because of the threat of imprisonment if they don’t. It sounds appealing and sounds like it makes sense if you don’t think about it for more than 30 seconds. What I think illustrates the error in this simplistic form of thinking quite nicely is Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which is essentially a set of very simple yet increasingly complex basic ways of thinking about the world, in terms of why one should or shouldn’t do X.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

    The first stage is obedience, simply doing things that will avoid getting punished.
    The second stage builds on that and is about self-interest, whether doing something will directly benefit you in an obvious way.
    The third stage is the desire to live up to social expectations: to do what is required to get a favorable reputation.
    The fourth stage is again about obedience, but about obeying the rules and laws in the name of upholding the social order and ensuring that society functions smoothly.
    Stage five is called social contract driven. It views laws more flexibly and allows for the possibility that laws can be unjust, and that the key is “the greatest good for the greatest number”.
    Stage six is based on abstract reasoning, “walking a mile in another person’s shoes”, and based on having categorical moral standards. It also tends to be associated with Immanuel Kant, and they say that this level of reasoning is rarely operated on, and honestly I have always half suspected this stage is bullshit and is just happened to be what Kohlberg personally considered to be “best”.

    So what is the point of all of that? I certainly don’t think the theory involved is perfect, nor do I care about what is a “lesser” stage. All that is irrelevant to my point: None but the first stage are actually worried about Men With Guns. Here, in this old psychological framework, are five other perfectly clear and applicable reasons why people would willingly pay their taxes. Aside from simply not giving a fuck, of course. It beggars belief to imagine that the only reason, or even the most important reason, why people would pay taxes is the very remote possibility that they might be arrested if they don’t.

  147. anteprepro says

    And if despite that you continue to insist that taxation is violence, because there is still a threat of imprisonment, even if it is very remote and not the primary reason people pay taxes, I imagine that the illegality of murder, arson, theft, and every other crime is also violence. As I have said before, with the view that EL alleges to hold, the social contract is inherently violent. The economy is inherently violent. Laws are inherently violent. Any responsibility given to you that has an “or else” attached to it is inherently violent, unless you manage to find some of punishment that manages to not “deprive” you of anything.

    It is utterly asinine point of view. But that’s Enlightenment Liberal for you.

  148. says

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- #139:

    I acknowledge your pain and your position. I still cannot agree with you.
    You and EL have failed to show that taxes actually in and on themselves cause harm.

    I haven’t said they do.

    It is the enforcement method—which is ultimately based on deliberately causing limited and controlled harm to people who break laws—which is harmful. I don’t, despite EL’s frankly ludicrous and odious claim that the harm caused is on a par with rape, think that the harm caused by forcible imprisonment is a huge harm. It is, though, a deliberately caused harm, and is thus a form of violence. I freely give my permission to my government to use this violence, so long as it is kept to the minimum forcefulness needed, but I also feel a duty to make sure that any violence used in my name, with my approval, is very closely monitored, lest it escalate, as it has done in the past in far too many prisons, to levels which I do not approve of or want used in my name. And, to my mind, this can only be done correctly if we first admit that we are deliberately causing harm, unavoidable though it may be.

  152. says

    Daz
    In that case you and I are actually on the same line.
    I fully acknowledge that enforcement can be violent, but that doesn’t make the thing in and on itself violent. Ultimately, when you come to my house, there are certain rules, like don’t use slurs and please mind your tongue around the children and would you please leave your muddy shoes outside? Don’t smoke inside, use the toilet, don’t paint on the walls. If you refuse to follow those rules I may choose to kick you out. If you refuse to leave I may use violence. That doesn’t make my rules “violence”.

    Coming back to taxes, VAT, unfair as it is, is actually a tax where enforcement is completely not violent. It is a tax owed by me, the consumer. It is included in the price I pay at the supermarket. There’s no violent enforcement because there’s simply no possibility for me not to pay it. Now, should the store not hand that money over to the government, this is not tax fraud. They’re not failing to pay taxes, they’re failing to hand over the taxes I paid to the government.

  153. Okidemia says

    Lurking through the last TDs with interest but maybe not enough to make the full length read (or am I lazzy?).
    So, late, hopefully not reviving the debate via a possibly trollish comment, since some people are wondering if everything hasn’t been said already and the sraid comes to no end but ands. (Violent puns not unintended).

    Grewgill #107

    Perhaps you can restate your assertion that “taxes are (threat of) violence” to “taxes are (threat of) violence to the small segment of the population that are business owners without wage income that make over $50,000/year.” That would be much closer to accurate.

    Even people that are not busimess owners should be included.

    Gilliel #139

    it is harmful in combination with poor people and unfair since it’s a rather blunt intrument that actually burdens you the more the lower your income is.

    It is clearly to the point. “State” violence is much more damaging to the poors than it is to people who are not. (Hopefully, I’m not opening a dictionnary war with my use of “state” instead of “gov”, in my cultural background this is the way the debate is framed, I think it is valid to make the point, and taxes are only a subset of it).

    That badly unbaldly pointed, with regard to “taxes are violence”.

    I come from a rather distributive state-controlled economy. When I was lucky enough to qualify as a ‘worker’ (which I would prefer to frame as a “regular wager”, because I was still sort of working even when unpaid, the fate of ‘science mercenaries‘ with ended contracts), taxes times always was full happiness. Indeed, as a lower end wager, taxes meant receiving monney (about 400$, that was huge! Something like free electricity for the whole year!). Taxes were thus peacefull for a few years, even as a poor worker. (that’s for the “taxes == peace” argument).

    On the other hand, administrative paperwork is inducing rather strong levels of stress and anxiety (and sometimes panic attacks) in me (I’m speaking about self experience but I’m not alone in this situation). Just the scare for wrong doing. When I was a post-doc in the USA, taxes were double load of anxiety, since I also had to fill special tax forms from my own birth state. This meant being able to understand two different administrative legal languages in full subtleties, because, frankly, law language is utterly different from street language. Eventually American colleagues told me not to try to fill the USA tax form by myself, there were softwares doing the job perfectly (which they did, but it was still a thing to connect the two different tax forms so that I don’t pay taxes twice).

    So if one equates violence and anxious troubles, which is no guarantee of rightfulness, I guess this might work.

    I paid taxes for the first time in my life last year, and guess what, I’m proud of it. I’ve only heard someone complain they was paying taxes all these years, only to remind them they was actually lucky enough*. So far, I paid much less than all the society collective commodities I enjoyed for free in my life.

    *Yep, I eventually learned about singular they by myself. First use ever! :)

  154. says

    It never ceases to amaze me how the so-called ‘Anarchists’ seem to all be exactly the sort of people who would be first against the wall if society actually descended into anarchy. The complete lack of self-awareness and ignorance of history and sociology is baffling.

  155. pHred says

    Apropos of nothing – I would just like to observe that visiting Thunderdome lately is rather akin to beating one’s head on a brick wall. Repeatedly. I have been reading along while sleepless due to the horrible head cold that won’t go away, in blank astonishment most of the time, wondering if … somewhere … somehow… there is punchline to all of this.

    Other then that, I will vehemently state that pistachios need to be salted. Otherwise they taste terrible.

  157. Okidemia says

    pHred #155

    I will vehemently state that pistachios need to be salted. Otherwise they taste terrible.

    Of course you mean Pistacia vera fruits and not Syzygium cumini ones… Oh no, wait, English vernaculars don’t confuse the two as I do.

    I wouldn’t ever salt S. cumini fruits, even in thought. I was about to vehemently oppose your comment, but that would only reflect confusion on my side… :-)

  158. says

    Thanks for the anniversary happies, everyone! We’re going to spend the day watching the first season of Arrow, which we were made to pay for, violently, natch.

  159. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal #97:

    I’m quite willing to put incarceration lasting years in the same category of “extreme forms of aggression” with assault, rape, and murder in terms of the level of harm.

    EL, I’ve been struggling with how to address this, but quite simply, you are wrong.

    I very seldom discuss details of my abuse in public, but I really want you to understand how fucking awful that statement is, so here goes…

    Trigger Alert: Child abuse.

    At the age of nine, EL, I was thrown, bodily and at speed, headfirst, at a wall. The only reason I’m here to tell you this is that my foot caught the arm of a sofa and twisted me sideways. That—being actually thrown that way—was a one off, but for a period of eight years, I was repeatedly slammed into that wall headfirst. I’ll let you imagine the rest of my abuse; suffice to say that that level of violence was pretty much routine. I tell you this because I have been told by some rape victims that my experience and specifically the emotional trauma arising from it, is at least in the same ball-park as the trauma suffered by at least some rape victims. It might give you, as you appear clueless about putting yourself into other people’s shoes, some idea of the vastness of your mistake on this matter.

    That was the spittle-and-raving-anger-filled-diatribe-free version.

  160. Okidemia says

    Within ThisMind #154

    The complete lack of self-awareness and ignorance of history and sociology is baffling.

    You mean, ignorance of what happened in Spain in 1938 or in Ukraine in 1918?

  162. pHred says

    Okidemia #157

    Absolutely – I wouldn’t salt Syzygium cumini fruits either.

    OTOH my grandmother used to put sugar on cantaloupes (Cucumis melo) and salt on watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). I could never understand that as a kid and it still doesn’t make sense to me.

    Fresh, ripe melon just picked from the garden is close to absolute bliss. I just can’t understand perpetuating either a salt or a sugar on it.

  164. Doug Hudson says

    Reading the argument about violence, I’m confused. Isn’t there a difference between legitimate (legal) violence and illegitimate (illegal) violence? It seems obvious to me that one of the purposes of a functioning State is to establish a monopoly on the use of violence by designating certain forms of violence as legitimate and others as illegitimate, with the designation itself backed by (usually implied) violence. The specifics vary from State to State, of course, depending on the ability of the governed to exert influence on those who govern.

    So, it seems to me obvious that police forces often commit violence, but that this violence is usually sanctioned by the State, and therefore legal. Whereas a private citizen committing the same violence would not be sanctioned, and therefore illegal. The problematic part is when police forces use violence in ways either not intended by the State or that harm a segment of the people of the State (as in Ferguson, MO, for example).

    Am I way off?

  166. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @pHred:

    Fresh, ripe melon just picked from the garden is close to absolute bliss. I just can’t understand perpetuating either a salt or a sugar on it.

    See, this close to my experience of a number of things. Chocolate, for one. Why put coffee nibs in chocolate. They’re intense. They actually interfere with the ability to taste the damn chocolate. And berries? Huh? They sweeten and dilute the taste. I suppose if you’re a fan Hershey’s and other super-mild, low cocoa-content chocolate and then develop a dairy allergy or get struck with an alien metabolism-altering ray that makes milk a poison to you or something, you’ll be stuck with high-cocoa content options that just (in your opinion) **need** to be mellowed out with something.

    But I eat chocolate for the chocolate. What’s wrong with that?

    I don’t refuse to eat chocolate with fruit – occasionally it’s even good or educational (the baobab fruit chocolate bar I ate once was my only consumption of baobab ever, so there’s that). If I’m given a gift from someone where the chocolate is cut with fruit or something, I’ll happily eat it…but part of the happy is about getting to know my generous friend by learning what my friend likes. If I’m going to the store and buying my own chocolate, save the odd fascination with baobab, I’m buying the chocolate **for the actual chocolate**. Why pay for raspberry filling and get less chocolate when the reason I went to the store was to get chocolate. It’s like, by getting less chocolate and paying for the raspberries I’m paying a tax or something.

    And that would just be, um…

    Moving on to tea, tea is also one of those things I like unadulterated. I’m not just drinking anything to get caffeine. **I like tea**. So I drink it without adding lemon or salt or sugar or pistachios.

    Now, I might have a cup of salt on the side, but that’s not the same thing. The tea is just tea. Always.

    I will vehemently state that pistachios need to be salted.

    Okay, with nuts and seeds and legume-snackies, I’ll agree with you.

    If I’m going to choose a peanut to eat, I definitely wanted it to be a salted before I assault it.

  169. Doug Hudson says

    Tony @167,

    Right, but I guess that’s what I don’t understand–it seems to me that people are confusing the definition of violence with the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence.

    Both police and criminals often rely on violence, the difference is a question of legitimacy.

    Likewise, taxation and a protection racket are both backed by violence (else Ken Hamm would not be in jail)–the difference is that one is authorized by the state, and the other is not.
    [And sometimes there is no difference between the two–see Ta-Nehisi Coates fantastic article about the Ferguson report, where he argues that it was essentially a government rule extortion scheme.]

  170. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Doug Hudson:

    You’re not wrong. Though you are being a bit metaphorical, it’s a common metaphor in certain circles. EnlightenmentLiberal brought up the “government is a monopoly of violence” idea.

    My response to him on page 2 of the previous TD, comment 241, was based on EL’s asinine insistence that this was “literally” true and/or was a “literal” definition, but it does serve as proof that the topic has been brought up and people are aware.

    Moreover, your deeper exploration is fairly on. The weakness in it that I would bother with is the lack of clear distinction (or more clearly equating, if that was your intent) between “legal” and “legitimate”. You’re not trying to say that if it’s legal, it’s fine by definition, are you? I doubt you are, but that’s the one significant weakness in what you’ve written that I can identify: your writing leaves you open to interpretation on that important point.

    So, yes, you’re on the right track. Absolutely.

    The interesting discussion to have would be, what actions by the government (whichever one happens to be yours, or just all governments in general) are unjust and/or illegitimate even though they are currently legal?

    That conversation has the possibility of bearing fruit that we don’t need to eat with some grains of salt.

  171. pHred says

    Yes! Chocolate for chocolates sake! Absolutely my first choice as well.

    I listened to this thing on NPR where they were talking to people from America’s Test Kitchen about their new Complete Vegetarian cookbook. It seemed like everything they talked about included adding all these spices – cayenne pepper, smoked paprika, garlic, sea salt, soy sauce, etc. etc. – often all at once. My mind boggled.

    Once you have done all that, how can you even tell what vegetable you are eating ???

    I don’t take broccoli, coat it in olive oil seasoned with a dozen things and then roast it to get my kids to eat broccoli. Oh – and then provide some kind of seasoned dip as well. (I am willing to try this as a one off – it does sound interesting, but sheash – not as a matter of course.) My kids are perfectly happy to eat steamed broccoli with a little grated Parmesan cheese on it (the real cheese – not the stuff you shake out of a can). Amazingly – it tastes like broccoli. With cheese.

    For tea – it depends – I can’t drink chai/masala without some milk and sugar. But other teas I like just as they are. lapsang souchong still tastes like fireplace ash to me though – regardless of what you do with it.

  172. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Daz:

    Your 159? You didn’t deserve that shit. I’m sorry others did that to you. May they know justice and may you know healing.

    Thanks to Tony! also for reminding me that even in a triggering discussion the decent person takes some time out to connect with the human details being shared.

  173. Doug Hudson says

    Crip Dyke @170,

    Sorry, cross-posted. I see what you are getting at, and yes, I was deliberately vague on the legal / legitimate distinction because I was making a broad statement. In retrospect, I should have said legal vs. legitimate.

    To clarify, I would say that there are certainly cases where State sanctioned (legal) violence is illegitimate (from a moral or ethical standpoint), and also cases where State agents commit illegal and illegitimitate violence under the guise of legal violence.

  174. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @pHred:

    For tea – it depends – I can’t drink chai/masala without some milk and sugar. But other teas I like just as they are.

    Yes! Exactly!

    I don’t drink chai/masala because they are a huge jumble of things in the manner you were discussing above. Once they are that jumble, I agree adding milk or sugar or whatever doesn’t have the effect of rendering the tea less tea-ish, so I’ve got no complaint with that strategy for chai/masala. It’s just that they are already not tea-for-tea’s-sake.

    lapsang souchong still tastes like fireplace ash to me though – regardless of what you do with it.

    Yes! Exactly!

    Mmmmm, fireplace ash.

    I might go make some Lapsang right now. I need to make a pot of tea anyway….

  175. Doug Hudson says

    Another interesting question–is incarceration violence? Well, I’d say there are different kinds of violence. There is violence to the body–incarceration certainly can mean this, especially in US prisons, where inmate on inmate and guard on inmate violence is prevalent. There is violence to the mind–incarceration can certainly carry a heavy psychological toll, especially the more extreme forms of imprisonment. Then there is violence to dignity and freedom–incarceration certainly violates basic human rights to dignity and self-determination.

    I’d say that incarceration is often a form of violence against the incarcerated person, and (more importantly, in some ways), the threat of incarceration is certainly a threat of violence, since the person being threatened rarely knows which types of violence they will face once incarcerated. [Ex: the unfortunately common jokes about prison rape become a rather pointed threat when one is faced with incarceration.]

    Does this mean that incarceration is automatically illegitimate? Of course not, any functional State will use a variety of different forms of violence to maintain the orderly function of society. But it is important to recognize that this is violence, and to make sure that it’s use is consistent with basic human rights. Arguably many US prisons represent illegitimate use of violence simply because of the abhorrent treatment of the prisoners, whereas Swedish prisons are noted for the humane treatment of the prisoners and probably only represent violence to freedom.

  176. pHred says

    Hum – good point about chai. I hadn’t thought about it like that.

    Enjoy your fireplace ash. I think I am going to go with something herbal to fight my headcold.

    Daz my sympathies. I have no spoons to actually deal with, well much of anything at the moment. I can’t take the bulk of this thread seriously anymore – but you deserve better. Such experiences are one of the reasons that I am derailing from the bloviation that has been occurring – the lack of respect for reality.

    ‘kay – a moment of total rambling – I used to work in a group with a person I will call L.J. who would go from person to person explaining, at great detailed length, all of the very important things they were supposed to be doing and how terribly busy they were, therefore they didn’t have time to actually do the thing that they were supposed to be doing for you/your project – oh, and how what we were doing and how we were doing it was all wrong.

    It took a while for everyone to catch on – but L.J. never actually did anything. Never finished projects, never improved processes, nothing. They just provided copious verbiage.

    I am feeling L.J.ed

  177. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Daz;

    Safe and supportive hugs to you. I know that any comparisons of abuse, of any form, is fraught with the possibility of misunderstandings a laoppression olympics, but your comparison is, to me, from my point of view, apt. The victim’s pain and humiliation when a violent act is done to them is, usually, short-lived. The internal anguish, the guilt, the feelings of responsibility, the knowledge that ‘I deserved it’, can last. How long I don’t know yet.

    I have been following this discussion of violence, whether taxation is violence, whether arrest or incarceration are violence, and my lack of participation was because I had no handle on how to express the difference between jail time (depriving a person of certain civil rights for a specified period of time) and actual personal violence. Thank you for your #159. You put into words that which I was unable.

  180. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Gilliel:

    One of our local candy places, a few months back, did an experimental batch of dark chocolate lime creams with just a touch of habanero pepper. Wow was it good. I filled out the survey and I think I was the only one who liked it.

  181. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Doug Hudson, #173:

    Yes. Your #173 is spot on. I think everyone would probably agree.

    Right, but I guess that’s what I don’t understand–it seems to me that people are confusing the definition of violence with the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence.

    I don’t think so. It’s a long conversation, and hard to follow at times. (My own posts were largely mockery for a good while, and yet in the sarcasm was occasionally a point actually relevant to the discussion and not just me having fun at the expense of the obstinate EL. I don’t reasonably expect interested parties to wade through all the off-topicness for one or two nuggets related to the conversation.) But people are largely focussed on what constitutes violence. It’s just that for many of us consent and intent play significant roles in determining **what violence actually is**.

    Let’s say my bum is hit repeatedly with a switch or stick until I end up bleeding. If this is done to me by enforcers of religious orthodoxy, during my adulthood, for daring to accompany Rafida Ahmed Bonna to Bangladesh and provide vocal support for her religious and political views…it’s violence.

    If the same thing happens – my bum is hit repeatedly with a switch or stick until I end up bleeding – during my adulthood because I, in my full mental capacity, uncompromised by disabling psychological conditions, think that this is really fun BDSM that gets me off and have found a delightful person who assented to my requests to perform this activity … well, that’s not violence.

    If we look at definitions given by actual dictionaries, they of course have multiple senses of “violence” . While the “stormy emotions” definition is unrelated to whether or not the government “is” violence (the claim that started this whole thread), other definitions are…and more than one other definition.

    Go ahead and read my #86 in the previous thread. For your convenience, this is a link to the comment.

    Okay, you’ve read as much of that comment as you’re ever going to?

    What’s your favorite authority in that group? I’ll pick out Oxford merely because Oxford is the most prestigious authority on the English language among them. What are the Oxford definitions related to violence?

    I restate them here (and look, I got lucky! These are just the ones most useful to clarifying your confusion!)

    1.
    Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:

    […examples excised, presumably you read them when reviewing the whole comment…]

    1.1
    Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

    So, for people who are using the word violence **as actually understood by the most prestigious authority on the English language we have available**, when discussing government “violence”

    in definition 1, intent matters, and if a person or government isn’t trying on purpose to “hurt,” “damage,” or “kill” its citizens, it is not committing violence against its citizens.

    In definition 1.1, clearly identified as a definition used in legal circles for the purposes of law, we find, quite unsurprisingly, that legal scholars have excluded any lawful action, no matter how otherwise violent, from the category “violence”.

    We’re not a group of lawyers having an argument about law here.

    We’re a bunch of lay people having an argument about political philosophy, governance, and justice.

    They are closely related, but they aren’t the same. It might even be that some people ignore your distinction between (in your words) just/legitimate violence and unjust/illegitimate violence. But that would be because you are using definition 1 as qualified by your modifiers related to legitimacy and morality/ethics…while those other persons are perfectly accurately using definition 1.1

    So what is and isn’t violence depends strongly on your definition.

    This is why, since EL made the original statement, many people have fucking begged EL to pick a fucking definition and stick with it. Otherwise it’s impossible to have a real conversation. I can say all I want that incarceration is not violence, because for me (like the good folk hired to teach royalty in the nation which gave birth to English), intent actually matters. If EL thinks intent doesn’t matter, EL can go off saying that I’m horribly, horribly wrong, because certain incarcerations can, if they happen to last multiple years, cause harm.

    I can try to point out that EL is making a distinction about whether or not the actions are **harmful** not whether they are **violence**, but if, somewhere in the deeply hidden definition used by EL, “harm” is used, then EL feels quite justified in telling me that I’m wrong, and that distinctions based on harm are subsidiary to categorizing things as violence or not.

    Without EL’s actual definition on the table, you get confused, because EL brings up whether or not violence is “legitimate” and asserts that others are using legitimacy as a criterion … but in the real world, the way actual authorities on the English language define “violence” and the way the vast number of people actually use the world violence (which is kind of circular, I admit: presumably the authorities are so defining **because** of the usage of vast numbers of people)

    ***intent is fucking relevant to the discussion, but “harm” writ broadly, not appearing in the definition, does not.***

    Does this help remove the confusion and make it easier to see why so many people are pissed off at EL’s refusal to put one definition on the table and live or die by it? Hell, even when EL suggested living and dying by the WHO definition, EL had to take a moment to say that EL **didn’t fucking understand the definition**.

    That, of course, makes it impossible that EL was actually being guided by the definition, which makes picking the WHO definition yet another exercise in duplicitous bullshit.

    You caught up now? Do you have any remaining questions? I’m happy to help people that are meaningfully engaging.

  183. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    chigau:

    I recently had a really good dark chocolate porter. It was really good. And I like fruit lambics.

  184. chigau (違う) says

    Oggie
    I like beer to taste like beer.
    I find fruity beer vaguely disturbing.
    And I hate ice wine.

  185. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Now I’ll lose all the respect I built up with CD by saying: I like dark chocolate with orange.

    2 funny things.

    First, I thought of “All of Me”*1, which has this funny trope of “back in bowl”. There’s a magic bowl, a soul escapes, they’re trying to put it back in the bowl. It’s all delightful chaos.

    So I pictured Giliell chasing my respect as she would chase manic chicken, screaming “back in bowl” to the incorporate thing.

    Second, it’s funny you say orange. My best friend **and** my partner both love chocolate adulterated with orange. I frequently tease my best friend about it (though that tradition never emerged with partner), and my partner and my best friend frequently have dry conversations about what must be wrong with my brain such that i don’t like orange in my chocolate.

    Anyway, orange in the chocolate has been a source of amusement for some years now.

    *1 – one of my favorite movies, and holy I am Groot!, Batman, that was a physical performance by Steve Martin that outdoes anything by that guy who did The Mask years later, despite that guy having a better rep for amazing physical performances than Martin. Martin is a killer musician, does amazingly popular lowbrow comedy. Does amazingly popular lowbrow/highbrow crossover comedy. Does quite a bit of comedy that I really love (the Jerk being a notable exception). Writes books and screenplays that don’t suck. Does direction and editing. Is quite a good dramatic actor. He’s just one of the most amazing talents to come out of tv/movies in, like, ever.

  186. Doug Hudson says

    Crip Dyke @181, Thank you! That is very helpful.

    Here’s my definition of violence: An act that causes physical or mental harm. Note that I add mental harm, for two reasons: 1) psychological harm can be just as bad as physical harm; 2) it can be difficult to separate out mental harm from physical harm, since mental harm is often caused by threats of physical harm.

    I do not consider legality to be part of the definition of violence, for two reasons: 1) legality and legitimacy are not the same thing, and many States use legality as a cover to commit violence against part or all of their own population; 2) as far as I know, there isn’t a word for “state-sanctioned violence”, which we need in order to discuss #1 if we can’t use the word violence.

    So, in short, are you familiar with a word that means “an act that would be classed as violence if it weren’t legal?” I’d love to use such a word, since “violence” isn’t quite right.

    “Force”, maybe?

  187. says

    Doug @186:

    Here’s my definition of violence: An act that causes physical or mental harm. Note that I add mental harm, for two reasons: 1) psychological harm can be just as bad as physical harm; 2) it can be difficult to separate out mental harm from physical harm, since mental harm is often caused by threats of physical harm.

    By that definition, getting a flu shot is an example of violence.

  188. says

    Catching up…

    Thank you to all those who expressed sympathy. Let’s just hope EL gets the point.

    Currently eating sticky ginger cake.

    A pub I worked in sold chocolate-flavoured beer (a dark ale) for a while. Twas nice.

    My working definition of violence for the context we’re in. A violent action is an action deliberately designed to cause some amount of harm. It doesn’t cover all violence (and notably doesn’t address severity), but I think it covers all instances pertinent to the discussion.

  189. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Daz @188:

    A violent action is an action deliberately designed to cause some amount of harm. It doesn’t cover all violence (and notably doesn’t address severity), but I think it covers all instances pertinent to the discussion.

    My only issue with this is that sometimes the people performing the violent action are doing it for a reason they think is a good for the victim. How many times have we heard of “I’m only doing this for your own good” right before the child or spousal abuse? Not that it is a bad definition, just, as you alluded to, not complete.

    I’m not too sure how I would define violence. I have lots of examples, but no good working definition. Sorry.

  190. Doug Hudson says

    Tony! @187,

    Sticking a needle in someone can be pretty violent–that’s why little kids tend to cry when they get shots. Plus, there IS a slight risk of things going wrong, which is why doctors generally only give vaccinations to people who consent.

    The point we disagree on is whether the word violence inherently carries an implication of wrong-doing. I feel that it does not–there are many situations (a doctor giving a shot to a child, a policeman shooting an armed robber) where violence is both legal and legitimate.

    But as I said above, I am perfectly fine with using a word that means “a legitimate act that would be considered violence if it were illegal and /or done without consent” (i.e. legitimate violence); I’m just not familiar with such a word, which is why I was so confused about the conversation.

  191. Doug Hudson says

    follow-up to 190—The second sentence should read “The point I THINK we disagree on”…

  192. Okidemia says

    pHred #162:

    Right right right. So right.

    I used to find weird those who were putting dry ham and port on cantaloupes. Until I tried. I wouldn’t sray this is the best way, but I admitted.

    Then, someone pissed themself when I once tried themself on a cantaloupe omelette, which was not so bad actually. (just needs over perfect ripe cantaloupe, and a pinch of vanilla rhum).

    Salty pineaple also is a good deal. But the best way to not fail it is to make it with a quick rinse in sea water.

  194. says

    Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur #189:

    My only issue with this is that sometimes the people performing the violent action are doing it for a reason they think is a good for the victim.

    Which, if you’ll allow me to expand that to ‘for a good purpose,’ is why I define enforcement by imprisonment as violence. I’m not saying that should be the generally accepted usage; just that it’s a useful secondary usage to keep in mind; that as soon as we imprison someone, we are doing them some amount of harm, and should be careful of heaping more harm on top of that, if we truly want imprisonment to be corrective, rather than a punishment (which often, to me, reeks more of vengeance than justice or a real attempt to protect society).

    How many times have we heard of “I’m only doing this for your own good” right before the child or spousal abuse? Not that it is a bad definition, just, as you alluded to, not complete.

    Yeah. Therein lies the problem; who gets to decide, and on what grounds, we define an action as necessary violence? But that problem remains even if we don’t like the term ‘violence’ for law enforcement.

  195. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Doug Hudson

    I do not consider legality to be part of the definition of violence

    Well, no one does, if you mean THE definition of violence. But if you are discussing governance, government, and violence, it’s not irrelevant to note that there exists a well-supported, well-used definition that does use “legality” as a major criterion. Even if such a definition is an operational definition for use within the profession of law, it’s common enough to make it into the dictionary, so we might as well each take the time to say whether or not that’s the definition we’re using.

    …as for “FORCE”, well, force includes gravity, and we don’t want to get lost in the woods.

    I’d just say “legal violence”. Since that would be an oxymoron in 1.1, and there exists a definition 1 where it is not an oxymoron, I think anyone who didn’t know what the hell I was talking about, or who, as a naive lawyer, was so used to definition 1.1 they forgot about the existence of definition 1, (because, in this hypothetical, i was so rude as to not even attempt to define violence) could at least go to the dictionary, read the definitions and be quite clear that there are some definitions that don’t include legality, that “stormy emotions” probably aren’t under discussion, since we are discussing government and government doesn’t have emotions per se, and thus reasonably conclude that I’m using “legal” to modify something rather like definition 1.

    So, yeah, I think going the long route and providing our own definitions of violence is highly useful. But if you’re not, just stating “legal violence” is probably enough to at least get us started.

    ========
    further for Doug:

    Here’s my definition of violence: An act that causes physical or mental harm.

    Note that I don’t care how you define it, as long as you define it, because at least with our definitions on the table we can say, “Ah, I see, the trouble isn’t that one of us is denying incarceration causes harm, it’s that one of us doesn’t include “harm” in the definition of violence.”

    EL, going without a definition, was constantly accusing people of refusing to see the obvious facts…instead of just incorporating the obvious facts into a categorization process that used a different definition. That was, well, …frustrating.

    But now that I’ve said that I don’t care what your definition is, I have a couple questions because I doubt that you yourself have managed to state everything you use in determining whether or not something is “violence”.

    If I notice a frayed cord on a kitchen appliance, but plug it in anyway, which leads to (after fire and heat and energy and whatever the hell: it’s my hypothetical, I’ll be vague where I want to be) a pumpkin see being thrown through the air and scratching the cornea of someone pointing a fire extinguisher at the small blaze…

    …is the act of plugging in the appliance “violence”?

    I strongly suspect you will say, “No,” which is why I bring it up. But it’s okay if you say yes. As long as I know what you mean, I can work with it.

    @Daz, #188

    sticky ginger cake.

    Sounds awesome. I had a ginger/poppy spice cake years and years ago. Truly awesome. Never tried making something like that at home, but never came across something remotely as good in restraunts/bakeries ever again.

    It has made my life one long sad.

  196. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Okidemia:

    Salt on melons may be a regional thing. In the Cumberland Valley of Maryland, salt on honeydew, cantaloupes, watermelons, etc., was normal. Then again, in parts of Italy, melons with prosciutto (very salty) is a common appetizer. Which is delicious.

    Never thought of it in an omelette, though.

  197. Okidemia says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden #166

    But I eat chocolate for the chocolate. What’s wrong with that?

    Junky…

  198. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Daz:

    Therein lies the problem; who gets to decide, and on what grounds, we define an action as necessary violence? But that problem remains even if we don’t like the term ‘violence’ for law enforcement.

    I wasn’t thinking of it in terms of law enforcement, more personal — I think you know my history and my abuser’s justification for his violence.

    I wonder if there is a separate term out there for the legal removal of some civil rights (imprisonment)? Other than imprisonment or incarceration, that is. If looked at in one way, it is violence — denial of some civil rights — but on a personal level I have a problem with that. Which is more likely my confusion rather than you, or Crip Dyke’s, exegesis on violence (which has been very enlightening (but (for me (probably because of the filter of my history)) confusing).

  199. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz

    I don’t, despite EL’s frankly ludicrous and odious claim that the harm caused is on a par with rape,

    I never said that. Someone else defined violence with a bullet point that included a list of assault, murder and rape. I said incarceration goes in that list. I never compared incarceration specifically with rape alone.

    @Daz in 159
    I agree your experience is horrific and much worse than normal incarceration. However, as hinted by Tony, I think I might be willing to suggest your experience is comparable to someone who spends years in solitary.

    When I said that incarceration belongs in the list “assault, murder, rape”, the list included “assault”, not “the most horrific case of sustained abuse physical I’ve ever heard about secondhand”. “Assault” includes a lot of things, including a simple punch to the face. In the context of defining violence, a simple punch to the face is assault. In a later post, I even explicitly compared incarceration to a punch in the face. You took “assault” and interpreted it to be one of the most horrible cases of assault. If I get to use the same standards of interpretation and choose the most horrific example of incarceration, then I think most of us would agree that they are in the same ballpark of horribleness – use your imagination, or look at prisons in tyrannies, and prisons in the US such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

    I’m sorry. I don’t find your argument in context to be applicable and reasonable.

    Thank you to all those who expressed sympathy. Let’s just hope EL gets the point.

    What point is that? What point do you think I’m missing? I’m consciously avoiding snark with you for now because I hope these are just honest mistakes. I think that most of the others arguing against me here range from merely unreasonable with poor reading skills to wholly dishonest.

  200. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Ogvorbis

    I wonder if there is a separate term out there for the legal removal of some civil rights (imprisonment)? Other than imprisonment or incarceration, that is. If looked at in one way, it is violence — denial of some civil rights — but on a personal level I have a problem with that.

    The WHO definition of “violence” uses the word “deprivation”.

  201. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Og, #189:

    I’m not too sure how I would define violence. I have lots of examples, but no good working definition. Sorry.

    Yeah, that’s why I started out, in the last TD, with saying, “Here are some things that would help decide whether something in the category of maybe-it-is-maybe-it-isn’t-violence would qualify as violence for me.

    That’s my #65, page 2, previous TD (TD58). It takes for granted that we’re all in the same ballpark to begin with. But it helps a ton if you’ve started with a specific definition from Oxford or Merriam-Webster or The Free Dictionary or WHO or whomever, only to find that there are corner cases upon which we disagree. It makes it plain why I would rule something out, once an inclusive definition of violence potentially rules it in.

    I don’t go into intent as much as I might like. Nor consent. But it’s already long enough to have a productive conversation.

    Creating a rock solid, no-corner-cases definition of “violence” however, would mean having rock solid, no-corner-cases definitions of every word within the definition of violence. We’re not going to get that (at least in part b/c near-infinite regress), so at some point it worth it to say, “This is good enough to start having conversation X. If we run into trouble later, we can spend the words necessary to clear up just the part that’s giving us trouble, without systematically creating an entire fucking dictionary of our own.”

  202. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Okidemia:

    I can stop any time I want.

    Really.

    Of course, the kids are out of the house, so this is my opportunity to make cookies, but I don’t **have to**. Jeez.

  203. Doug Hudson says

    Crip Dyke @195,

    I’m good with “legal violence”, and I’d just explain what I meant if there was confusion. Thanks!

    You’re right, I wouldn’t class your hypothetical as “violence”–I do think, off-hand, that there is an implication of intent in the word “violence.” Though maybe not–after all, sometimes people refer to a “violent earthquake”, and there certainly isn’t any “intention” there. Food for thought.

    Anyway, thanks for your explanations. I was reading the thread thinking “I have got to be missing something, I can’t be on the same side as EnlightenedLiberal.” Now I understand the context, I can safely say that I do not agree with him.

  204. says

    href=”http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/03/10/thunderdome-59/comment-page-1/#comment-920816″>EnlightenmentLiberal #199:

    I don’t, despite EL’s frankly ludicrous and odious claim that the harm caused is on a par with rape,

    I never said that. Someone else defined violence with a bullet point that included a list of assault, murder and rape. I said incarceration goes in that list. I never compared incarceration specifically with rape alone.

    Does not square with:

    I’m quite willing to put incarceration lasting years in the same category of “extreme forms of aggression” with assault, rape, and murder in terms of the level of harm.

    I agree your experience is horrific and much worse than normal incarceration. However, as hinted by Tony, I think I might be willing to suggest your experience is comparable to someone who spends years in solitary.

    So now it’s solitary confinement, rather than ‘incarceration lasting years’?

    I don’t mind you changing your ideas in response to criticism. My own definition of violence has evolved somewhat over the course of this thread. It’s how, if we’re honestly trying to debate, rather than merely argue, we make some sort of progress. Just don’t try to pretend that your new idea is the same as your old idea. ‘Cause that’s called lying.

  205. Okidemia says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden #202

    I can stop any time I want.

    Really.

    Lucky you!

    I had to increase the intakes, until daily. Not enough, even 99% pure.
    Then I even began to accept any quality, i.e. milk chocolate.

    Then the only option left was sports.

    I’ve paid a high price. Now I receive monney to go to schools and scare the kids:
    “Never take chocolate. Ever.”

  206. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Doug Hudson, #190:

    implication of wrong-doing.

    Implication of wrong-doing?

    Or intent to X?

    If you grab your +3 flaming burst, vorpal scimitar and start hacking up kiddies in the park, I might (being the good gun nut that I am) take out my trusty, Israeli-made, Glock & Wesson .50 cal revolver and blow you away.

    I have intended to harm you. Heck, I intended to kill your ass. But I have not intended wrong doing, nor do I think that there is an implication of wrong-doing in using lethal force in defending kiddies against the wielder of a +3 flaming burst, vorpal scimitar. I agree this is violence. I think Tony! would agree.

    So perhaps you are misunderstanding the use of an Oxford-like “intent to X” as “an implication of wrong-doing” when an implication of wrong-doing need not be there at all?

  207. says

    Doug @190:

    The point we disagree on is whether the word violence inherently carries an implication of wrong-doing. I feel that it does not–there are many situations (a doctor giving a shot to a child, a policeman shooting an armed robber) where violence is both legal and legitimate

    I’m not sure that’s the point of disagreement.
    I think intent is a factor in determining whether an act is violent. If I read you correctly, you do not think intent is a defining characteristic of violence.
    Did you happen to read the World Health Organizations definition of violence I linked to upthread?

    The intentional use of physical force or power,
    threatened or actual, against oneself, another
    person, or against a group or community, that
    either results in or has a high likelihood of
    resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,
    maldevelopment or deprivation

    That definition covers rape, murder, and assault. It also covers MMA fights and boxing matches. It does not, however, cover flu shots, because here, intent does matter.
    Why is intent not a component of your definition of violence?

  208. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Doug Hudson

    Though maybe not–after all, sometimes people refer to a “violent earthquake”, and there certainly isn’t any “intention” there. Food for thought.

    Well, sure. There are other definitions of violence, and according to those…

    The key is that the context in which we were discussing thing, an argument about the nature of government and whether or not it was possible to create moral government, the definition of “violent” deployed in the phrase “violent earthquake” simply has no bearing. No one was criticizing the government for having stormy emotions or for quick changes of direction.

    So even though, yes, there exist those other definitions, we reasonably conclude that they aren’t helpful in a discussion about the morality of government, so we aren’t going to waste time dealing with them and we’re not going to think so little of the rhetorical abilities of the other participants to believe that they intended those meanings (unless explicitly brought up for clarification purposes, as you did, which might divert the conversation away from its main direction, but does not indicate a failure of understanding or of articulation).

  209. says

    The Flu thing.

    I’d suggest that even if we accept necessary deliberate harm as a form of violence, some actions, like flu shots, are minor enough that though technically they’d be violence, we’d be straying into the territory of pedantry if we included them as such. (And yeah, I did at one point fall into that pedantry pit myself.)

  210. opposablethumbs says

    There are people here who have been subjected to the most horrible abuse, even as children, and who are generous, full of empathy, clear-thinking, always ready to examine their own positions and open to honest argument. You’re amazing, and invaluable.

  212. says

    EL @200:

    The WHO definition of “violence” uses the word “deprivation”.

    Of note: they don’t explain what they mean by deprivation.

    Also, the report by the World Health Organization is titled World Report on Violence & Health. The words imprison, imprisoned, jail, jailed, incarcerate and incarceration are never used in the report. Prison appears exactly twice:

    The latter includes youth
    violence, random acts of violence, rape or sexual
    assault by strangers, and violence in institutional
    settings such as schools, workplaces, prisons and
    nursing homes.

    and

    Women and men may also be raped when in police custody or in prison.

    Surely if the authors felt that incarceration (or taxes for that matter) is violence, it would have been addressed in the report.

  214. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    religious connotations to Ken “This mottling of the asphalt looks vaguely like Jesus, it’s a miracle!” Ham, or religious connotations to reasonable people?

    Cause rhizome is about life and all life if proof of the big GdashD, don’tcha know?

  215. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Doug in 203
    I just read Crip Dyke in 195. They strawman my position, and they are making shit up. Please don’t listen to their lies. If you have questions about my position, please ask me directly.

    For your benefit, let me address some posts.

    181:
    I agree that self-inflicted injury, accidental or otherwise, made without duress, is not violence. I never argued otherwise.

    Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:

    I agree that this is a sensible description of violence.

    I can say all I want that incarceration is not violence, because for me (like the good folk hired to teach royalty in the nation which gave birth to English), intent actually matters.

    I do think intent matters.
    I also think that when agents of the government incarceration someone, that is harmful, and the agents know it is harmful. Thus the agents have the intent to harm. That seems like an inescapable conclusion from the premises.

    Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

    Doug, I think you and I already agree that “unlawful” should not be part of any definition of violence.

    This is why, since EL made the original statement, many people have fucking begged EL to pick a fucking definition and stick with it.

    Very early on in the conversation, Crip Dyke provided a plethora of definitions, and I noted that under most of the definitions, incarceration is violence. Crip Dyke denied this, and then pretended that I wasn’t pointing out which definition of violence I was using, when I pointed out that I’m good with most of those definitions, and most of those definitions of violence include incarceration. I did so here.

    About harm or violence. Frankly, this is dishonest bullshit. It started here when Tony gave his definition of violence. I responded here where I argued that incarceration is harmful in order to fulfill a certain bullet point of a certain definiton of violence. My goal was to show that incarceration fulfilled his definition of violence, and to do that I needed to argue that it was harmful in order to meet that bullet point. Then Tony objected to that here, presumably on the implicit basis that assault, murder, and rape are much much worse in terms of harm than incarceration. I responded to the particular disagreement about relative harm. We needed to resolve the question of relative harm in order to resolve the question of whether it should count as violence under that definition. Crip Dyke should understand this, but Crip Dyke is a dishonest asshat.

    Without EL’s actual definition on the table, you get confused, because EL brings up whether or not violence is “legitimate” and asserts that others are using legitimacy as a criterio

    At no point did I attempt to define violence in terms of legitimacy. I did the exact opposite throughout and consistency. Again, this is Crip Dyke doing flagrant lies.

    Hell, even when EL suggested living and dying by the WHO definition, EL had to take a moment to say that EL **didn’t fucking understand the definition**.

    Again, more dishonesty. In context, I just tried to argue that under the definition given, the WHO definition, incarceration counts as violence. I’ve made the argument numerous times, including in this post. In the context of just giving an argument why incarceration fits the WHO definition, I noted that Crip Dyke disagreed with my assessment. When I said I don’t understand the definition, I was being diplomatic. What I really meant was “Crip Dyke, you are full of shit when you say that incarceration doesn’t meet the WHO definition”. But that was back when I was still trying to be civil with Crip Dyke, and I thought productive conversation with that person was useful. Again, Crip Dyke is a dishonest asshat.

    186:
    The definition of violence sounds approximately good. No complaints. I agree that “legality” and “justified” is not part of our understanding of the word “violence”. I agree that “legality” and “legitimacy” are definitely not the same thing.

    195:
    Contrary to Crip Dyke, throughout the conversation I agreed to use the definitions of “violence” of others. I argued that incarceration counts as violence under most of their definitions. Crip Dyke is lying. Towards the end of the conversation, I’ve been defaulting to the WHO definition. Incarceration is also violence under the WHO definition.

    I agree that Crip Dyke’s accidental Rube Goldberg’s device which accidentally inflicts harm is not obviously violence. I’m ok with saying it’s not. I agree that gravity is a force, but not violence. Crip Dyke has been on a rant about useless pedantics to avoid engaging my points. Everyone else understood what I was saying in context, but Crip Dyke refused to be a reasonable participant and instead focus on word games.

    203:
    So, what do you think my position is? Do you think my position is that accidental injury through an accidental Rube Goldberg machine must count as violence? No. I have never argued for (or against) that irrelevant position. Do you think that I’ve argued that gravity is violence? Again no, according to any reasonable reader.

  216. Doug Hudson says

    Tony @207, I’m still not sure that I see the distinction you’re making–I would certainly classify boxing and MMA as violence, just consensual violence.

    After reading Crip Dyke’s excellent posts, let me try to re-work my definition.

    The word “violence”, to me, means an act that causes physical harm to a person or animal. (Maybe objects as well, though damage is probably a better word.”

    Obviously, this is an exceptionally broad definition that almost inevitably must be accompanied by clarifying adjectives. For example:
    “legal violence”–self-explanatory, really. Same for “illegal violence”.
    “legitimate (or moral / ethical) violence” — violence that is done by the consent of the target, or (if not consensual), done within one’s moral framework. Obviously everyone will have slightly (or significantly) different definitions of legitimate, so some further explanation will be necessary–the KKK and the SLPC come to mind.
    “illegitimate violence” — opposite of legitimate violence.
    “natural / accidental / unintentional violence” — violence caused by a natural force, or by accident. A car wreck can be accidental violence.

    This refinement allows for finer classification of the specific type of violence in question. For example, a police shooting can be legal and legitimate (shooting an armed robber), legal and illegitimate (shooting an unarmed black man, ahem), illegal and illegitimate (rare, but it does happen), or accidental violence (missing target and hitting bystander, which is legal and quasi-legitimate, depending on circumstances.)

    If, in a given conversation, everyone agrees to use “violence’ as a shorthand for a particular sub-set of violence (as in this thread, where “accidental / natural violence isn’t part of the discussion), then perhaps one can leave off the descriptors.

  218. says

    Crip Dyke @206:

    I have intended to harm you. Heck, I intended to kill your ass. But I have not intended wrong doing, nor do I think that there is an implication of wrong-doing in using lethal force in defending kiddies against the wielder of a +3 flaming burst, vorpal scimitar. I agree this is violence. I think Tony! would agree.

    Indeed I do.

  219. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Oops. Didn’t mean to hit send. Sorry Daz.

    I like Tony!’s “tome” but if you want, you really should be aware of online tools. I had a rhyming dictionary when I was a kid learning to write poetry. Although I went without one for a long time, now no one with access to the internet is without a rhyming dictionary.

    Here are the results for ‘dome’ at RhymeZone.

  220. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Oh, shit.

    With your quote, Tony!, I realized I used “scimitar” which I **thought** was just a random weapon from D&D. No one uses scimitars anymore, right?

    Then I realized, DUH!, beheadings, blaming muslims for all violence in the world, etc.

    Fuck, I should have picked a different word.

    [Zvei-hander, maybe? No one associates Germany/Germans with intolerable violence, do they?]

  222. Saad says

    Crip Dyke, #220

    Zvei-hander, maybe? No one associates Germany/Germans with intolerable violence, do they?

    A Cambodian friend of mine does, but I think that’s like the Pot calling the Keitel black.

  223. Doug Hudson says

    Crip Dyke @220,

    Khopesh. Ancient Egyptian sword, hasn’t been used for over 2000 years. I think that’d be safe.

  224. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz in 204
    It said “extreme forms of aggression”, not “extreme forms of violence”. It’s aggressive to call someone names. It’s aggressive to cut someone off in traffic. Not all forms of aggression are violence. Generally when aggression becomes extreme it becomes violence. A simple punch to the face is an extreme form of aggression.

    Do you think an unlawful kidnapping on its own is necessarily violence? Do you think that lawful incarceration is necessarily violence? Do you accept the WHO definition of violence as sufficiently accurate? If yes to all, then it follows that you must put incarceration in that list of “assault, murder, and rape” – otherwise it’s not violence. You’re being unreasonable here.

    I do think that incarceration is barbaric. I have a friend in prison right now for many years because of some completely trumped up charges when he is a danger to no one. I agree that your own experience was horrific, but I seemingly disagree with you when I also feel that years in prison is also horrific, even if it’s minimum security. Do I want to compare the two? Not really. If forced, I will say that yours is clearly worse. Years in normal minimum prison, or years being horrifically physically abused as a kid, we all know which is worse. Incarceration is still horrific.

    …

    @Tony

    Of note: they don’t explain what they mean by deprivation.

    Surely if the authors felt that “incarceration (or taxes for that matter) is violence”, it would have been addressed in the report.

    I’m not a mindreader. I didn’t know that. I also don’t care enough about what they think to read the rest of their website, especially if it means that the WHO considers an unlawful kidnapping on its own to be non-violent. Consciousness razor has already adopted the position that unlawful kidnapping on its own is not violence. I have nothing to say to that. If you also want to adopt that position, then I have nothing more constructive which I can say to you either. If you want to make a distinction between an unlawful kidnapping and a lawful incarceration, and say one is violence and the other is not, then there might be something we can discuss.

  225. says

    Doug @216:

    I’m still not sure that I see the distinction you’re making–I would certainly classify boxing and MMA as violence, just consensual violence.

    Intent matters to me in deciding whether an action qualifies as violent. Look at the WHO definition above.

    MMA fighting centers around individuals beating the shit out of each other. So does boxing. Getting a flu shot doesn’t qualify, IMO, bc the intent is not to harm someone.

    Here’s a hypothetical:
    Imagine a father and his 5-year-old daughter cooking spaghetti. She’s standing on the second step of a step-stool close by her father. After finishing the pasta, the father turns off the burner and removes the pot from the stove. As the daughter begins to step down from her stool, she reaches out, unaware that her hand is about to touch the still hot burner on the stove. The father sees this and reaches out, and with a degree of force, pulls his daughters hand away before she burns herself.

    “Ow! Daddy you squeezed my wrist hard. It hurts.”
    “I’m sorry sweetie. I didn’t mean to hurt you. You were about to touch the hot stove and I reacted instinctively to protect you.”

    The amount of force he used was enough to mildly hurt his daughter, though that certainly wasn’t his intent. His intent was to protect his daughter from burning her hand. This does not count as violence in my book.

  226. says

    EL @224:

    I’m not a mindreader. I didn’t know that. I also don’t care enough about what they think to read the rest of their website, especially if it means that the WHO considers an unlawful kidnapping on its own to be non-violent.

    It is not necessary to be a mindreader. All that was needed was for you to read the link provided, which is to a report by WHO. I didn’t ask you to read their whole website. I provided a link to a definition of violence that I agreed with (something you obstinately refused to do for far too long).

  227. says

    Daz

    Therein lies the problem; who gets to decide, and on what grounds, we define an action as necessary violence? But that problem remains even if we don’t like the term ‘violence’ for law enforcement.

    Yep, that’s a completely different can of worms. Obviously, many people still think that hitting children is necessary. A jury decided that George Zimmerman was fou d to have used legitimate violence. Germans as a society have a very different opinion on what counts as reasons for arresting somebody than the USA.

    +++
    I’m also not sure if I am happy with including emotional harm, but my thoughts are muddy on this.

  228. Doug Hudson says

    Tony @ 225, Okay, I see your point. But, as it happens, I would classify your example as “violence”–with the clarification that it is “legitimate violence”–violence done by consent OR in line with the moral framework of, in this case, pretty much everyone.

    If I can pose a counter-example, what about spanking? Many parents in the US feel that spanking is not violence, since they don’t intend to hurt their children–yet in much of Europe, spanking is considered child abuse (which is clearly violence.)

    Under my scheme, the question is not whether spanking is violence, but whether it is legitimate violence. How would you describe it?

  229. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony

    I provided a link to a definition of violence that I agreed with (something you obstinately refused to do for far too long).

    Irrelevant or inaccurate. If the WHO holds that an unlawful kidnapping itself is not violence, then I can completely disregard the WHO as ridiculous and irrelevant. Again Tony: is an unlawful kidnapping itself violence? Or can there be an unlawful kidnapping which is not violence? If you really think “yes”, then we can both save ourselves a lot of time if you just answer “yes”, because then I can put you in the “wholly unreasonable” category and I can stop engaging with you.

  230. says

    EL @215:

    Then Tony objected to that here, presumably on the implicit basis that assault, murder, and rape are much much worse in terms of harm than incarceration.

    I objected to it because I do not believe that incarceration is a form of violence. I do not agree with placing it on a list of violent actions.

  231. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal #224:

    you must put incarceration in that list of “assault, murder, and rape” – otherwise it’s not violence. You’re being unreasonable here.

    There are forms of violence and there are grades of, call it the forcefulness of violence, within each form. Violence which directly harms the body of a person is a completely different form of violence than violence which harms them in less bodily-immediate ways. Rape, battery, and other bodily abuses are not even on the same fucking scale as violence which does not immediately abuse the body. Bodily abuse is not only physically injurious, but is the most violent and traumatic way in which a person’s autonomy can be violated.

  233. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    EnlightenmentLIberal quoting me:

    Hell, even when EL suggested living and dying by the WHO definition, EL had to take a moment to say that EL **didn’t fucking understand the definition**.

    Again, more dishonesty. In context, I just tried to argue that under the definition given, the WHO definition, incarceration counts as violence.

    Comment #89, which the internet attributes to EnlightenmentLiberal:

    I said many of Crip Dyke’s definitions are fine. If you want to pick one, ok, let’s pick the one you Tony provided. The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. I’m still a little confused about that definition, as expressed in post 72, post 74, and post 78.

    I won’t include the links again, but when EL lists post numbers, it’s to page 2 of the previous TD (TD58).

    So, in the comment that EL chose the WHO definition, does EL actually take a moment to state the EL doesn’t understand the definition?

    Well, that’s entirely dependent on whether you think “confusion” and “lack of understanding” are sufficiently interchangeable that I’m not lying here. If EL insists on definitions for “doesn’t” or “lack” or “understanding” or “confused” I’ll provide them.

    I trust the rest of you to come to your own conclusions.

    ======================
    Let’s look at this from EL:

    181:
    I agree that self-inflicted injury, accidental or otherwise, made without duress, is not violence. I never argued otherwise.

    Except, this comment 181 to which EL references is my comment #181 in this thread.

    My #181 in this one-page thread comes, perhaps surprisingly, subsequent to EL’s comment #89 in this thread.

    Nowhere in #181 did I accuse EL directly of endorsing the idea that self-inflicted violence is violence. In fact, the example to which he is apparently responding is not self-inflicted at all. It’s inflicted by an entirely separate person, **but with my consent**. I was talking about consent there, not self-infliction, but it raises another question about EL’s honesty.

    How is it possible to state that he is using the WHO definition of violence but that he isn’t arguing violence to self counts as violence? There is absolutely nothing in the WHO definition that excludes self-inflicted violence.

    More to the point, after one paragraph of my own writing, I quote the WHO’s extension of its definition. Technically, this is all part of the definition. The first paragraph of that extension?

    Self-directed violence refers to violence in which the perpetrator and the victim are the same individual and is subdivided into self-abuse and suicide.

    WHO not only fails to rule out self-inflicted (or, in their language, self-directed) violence. They specifically, overtly, one might even say **clearly** make it known to everyone reading that self-inflicted violence is violence according to their definition.

    We know that EnlightenmentLiberal read this. We know that EnlightenmentLiberal endorsed this definition specifically.

    We also know that in #89 when EL specifies the WHO as the authoritative definer for EL’s purposes, that EL does not make any reservations or exceptions. According to EL, the definition of the WHO is EL’s definition, despite the fact that the definition “confuses” EL.

    1.
    WHO: Self-inflicted violence is violence.

    2.
    EnlightenmentLiberal: What WHO says is violence is violence. It’s violence as defined by WHO that I employ here.

    3.
    EnlightenmentLiberal: I have never argued that things that WHO specifically calls out as violence are, in fact, violence you context-out-of-taking motherfuckers.

    Fuck you, too, EL.

  234. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony

    I objected to it because I do not believe that incarceration is a form of violence. I do not agree with placing it on a list of violent actions.

    That would be circular now would it? The list was part of a definition of violence. The list was a list of actions of extreme forms of aggression which cause injury or harm. The list, which was itself just one criterion of many, was not a list of violent actions. It was a list of harmful actions.

    Sorry – I assumed more competence than I should have.

    Did EL just assert that its irrelevant or inaccurate to offer a definition of violence in a discussion about what constitutes violence?

    No, I said that further reading from the WHO website is irrelevant for this conversation in the context where we’ve already agreed to IMHO a sufficiently rigorous definition of violence. Do you plan to answer the question? Is unlawful kidnapping violence?

    …

    @Daz in 231
    Politely disagreed. Again, my current gold standard is that I would rather have a simple punch to the face (assuming no broken bones or lasting permanent damage) than spend a year in prison. I question the rationality of anyone who disagrees. I think that most such persons are just not being honest with themself. For you particularly, even with your history of horrific abuse, I suspect most people in that situation would still be better off with traumatic memories coming to the surface than spending a year in prison. If you want to persist in saying I’m wrong, then I guess the conversation is over, because I don’t know what more we might say.

  235. says

    Doug @228:
    I think the spanking of children is a form of violence.
    I also recognize that it is considered by many to be a form of “legitimate violence”, but I disagree. I oppose corporal punishment.

  236. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Saad @222:

    Once again, you kill me, you violent person you.

  237. pHred says

    Wow – I just got out of class and won’t be able to catch up. I have to write a homework set.

    Melon omelet – skeptical. However I love grilled pineapple and pineapple pizza – so I would be willing to try.

    Just realized that fresh berries dipped in melted dark chocolate is something that I adore, but not so much bits of fruit in a bar of chocolate. Orange chocolate reminds me of christmas – thus very complicated emotions, not something I voluntarily see out.

    It’s one of my microscope slides of diatoms.

  238. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal #229:

    Irrelevant or inaccurate. If the WHO holds that an unlawful kidnapping itself is not violence, then I can completely disregard the WHO as ridiculous and irrelevant.

    I don’t understand this. We both agree that enforcement by detention involves violence (it is ‘enforced, after all, physically). That is, it isn’t the detention, but the physical enforcement (or threat thereof) which constitutes the violence (or threat thereof).

    How, then, is the act of kidnapping itself violence? A person may be kidnapped by non-violent means, after all; by baits and lures, for instance. It is the physical means used, if they are used, to capture a person and hold them which constitute violence, not the kidnapping itself.

    IMO, you’re guilty mostly of sloppy language on this point, but the language used is skewing your thinking.

  239. says

    An individual can be unlawfully kidnapped without being subjected to violence.
    An individual can also be unlawfully kidnapped and be subjected to violence.
    In and of itself, there is nothing inherently violent about unlawful kidnapping.

    There.
    Are you fucking happy EL?

  241. says

    On a completely different note:
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-not-effective-for-treating-any-condition-australian-report-finds

    By diluting these substances in water or alcohol, homeopaths claim the resulting mixture retains a “memory” of the original substance that triggers a healing response in the body.

    These claims have been widely disproven by multiple studies, but the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday.

    “Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective,” the report concluded.

    “People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.”

    An independent company also reviewed the studies and appraised the evidence to prevent bias.

    Chair of the NHMRC Homeopathy Working Committee, Professor Paul Glasziou, said he hoped the findings would lead private health insurers to stop offering rebates on homeopathic treatments, and force pharmacists to reconsider stocking them.

    “There will be a tail of people who won’t respond to this report, and who will say it’s all a conspiracy of the establishment,” Glasziou said.

    “But we hope there will be a lot of reasonable people out there who will reconsider selling, using or subsiding these substances.”

    While some studies reported homeopathy was effective, the quality of those studies was poor and suffered serious flaws in their design, and did not have enough participants to support the idea that homeopathy worked any better than a sugar pill, the report found.

    In making its findings the NHMRC also analysed 57 systematic reviews, a high-quality type of study that assesses all existing, quality research on a particular topic and synthesises it to make a number of strong, overall findings.

  242. pHred says

    I managed two Thunderdomes, but my brain rebelled in this one and my eyes are refusing to read everything anymore. My congratulations to anyone who has managed to keep up and read everything.

  245. rq says

    I’m following along, but every time Enlightenment Liberal posts a comment, I feel my eyes glaze over. It’s a struggle. I suppose I’m too incompetent for them, anyway.

    And Saad‘s just walkin’ around this thread slaying people left and right, can someone please do something about that? With or without violence.

    Also, Daz, rather belatedly, please accept this *[mutually accepted gesture of comfort and sympathy]* – *hugs* to be had in the Lounge. :P I’m sorry you had to go through that.

  246. pHred says

    Tony! 241.

    “There will be a tail of people who won’t respond to this report,”

    A tail of people ?

    …?

    Is it fuzzy ?

  247. says

    I’m done with EL, but there’s an interesting conversation here with other people…

    +++

    There are forms of violence and there are grades of, call it the forcefulness of violence, within each form.

    Which raises the question of when quantity become quality.
    A fundamental difference between a kidnapping and an arrest is that with the latter you’re within a system where there are certainties and probablilities. With a kidnapping you never know what is going to happen. Is the kidnapper going to rape you? Kill you? Is anything you do going to positively affect your outcome?
    That is a different quality to being within a judicial system where your rights are upkept, where you know you will not be harmed physically if you do not initiate violence, where you have access to a lawyer and food and medical care. And then there are all sorts of grades between the kidnapping scenario and the one described possible within judicial systems. Incarceration in Germany, in Sweden has a different quality than in the USA or China or Saudi Arabia.

  249. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    #89

    The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. I’m still a little confused about that definition

    #229, quoting Tony!:

    I provided a link to a definition of violence that I agreed with (something you obstinately refused to do for far too long).

    Irrelevant or inaccurate. If the WHO holds that an unlawful kidnapping itself is not violence, then I can completely disregard the WHO as ridiculous and irrelevant.

    Inquiring minds want to know:

    Just what precisely does EL mean when EL says,

    The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. …

    …I can completely disregard the WHO

    MY generation would never embrace the WHO and then disregard them. Although I suppose I’m just talking about MY generation.

  250. Okidemia says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop # 240

    I wonder how many people are following along…

    Depends on your definition of following along. Someone is actually folhighing ashort.

  251. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz in 238
    Most of the definitions of violence given thus far include force and threats of force, including the WHO definition. Thus, incarceration would still be violence even if there was not a single actual instance in reality of of physical restraining because the threat of physical restraining is still there.

    Similarly, even if a particular unlawful kidnapping did not involve any actual instances of physical restraining, it’s still violence because the threat of physical restraining is still there.

    No “sloppy language” about it. I know I’ve been inexact sometimes here, but I don’t think this is such a case.

  252. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz in 243

    If you can’t see the huge chasm between a punch in the face and rape and other severer bodily abuses, I simply don’t know how to continue that strand of the conversation.

    I don’t know what you’re talking about. In several different sentences now, I have completely agreed that they are on completely different levels of violence, and one is far worse than the other. Could you please point out specific sentences, paragraphs, etc., where you infer that I cannot see this huge chasm? I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    …

    @Tony
    And thank you for answering. Guess we’re done. I might want to ask how the hell you think unlawful kidnapping doesn’t meet the WHO definition of violence when there’s the everpresent threat of physical restraining in kidnapping, but neither of us seem to care enough to have that conversation.

  253. says

    EL @251:

    Most of the definitions of violence given thus far include force and threats of force, including the WHO definition. Thus, incarceration would still be violence even if there was not a single actual instance in reality of of physical restraining because the threat of physical restraining is still there.

    And yet their report on worldwide violence fails to mention anything about the violence that is incarceration.

  254. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I know I’ve been inexact sometimes here, but I don’t think this is such a case.

    yep, you have been inexact and wrong. Only an ideologue says taxes are violence. Usually to show a government scheme that avoids what they see as the problem, but creates a myriad of fatal problem in its own right. Been there, heard that, dismissed that.

  255. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Giliell:

    Which raises the question of when quantity become quality.
    A fundamental difference between a kidnapping and an arrest is that with the latter you’re within a system where there are certainties and probablilities. With a kidnapping you never know what is going to happen. Is the kidnapper going to rape you? Kill you? Is anything you do going to positively affect your outcome?

    Awesomely insightful and useful.

    I think intent is an integral part of the definition of violence. Otherwise, as I said earlier, plugging in a kitchen appliance is violence if it later turns out to cause or threaten to cause injury. (We are talking about the modern world and its smart appliances, aren’t we?)

    I don’t include harm **per se** as a requirement for violence. If you, Giliell, steal my aforementioned trusty, Israeli-made, Glock & Wesson .50 cal revolver, turn it on me, and shoot to kill…but you miss and the bullet lands in the ocean, hurting nothing and no one… violence is still done.

    But “intent” is qualified for me. It doesn’t merely mean that I take the action voluntarily (else plugging in the appliance still counts; the plugging-in was on purpose, after all). Intent to harm/injure/kill is what’s important.

    Moreover, everything is uncertain. When I try to punch you, I might miss, as you did with my .50 cal revolver. [I, being a hypothetical gun fondler and therefore a better hypothetical shot, totally blew away the hypothetical Doug Hudson.] So even though it appears awkward and pedantic, in our thought processes, most of us may actually be using, without consciously being aware we are using, a formulation something like:

    Intentionally taking an action that may very well result in harm,
    and with full awareness that one is creating a high likelihood of harm,
    and with the desire that the likelihood of harm increase OR a complete indifference to this increase combined with taking no steps to minimize the likelihood of harm

    At this point, we still have to decide whether or not psychological harm is intended to be included, but for those that do include psychological harm, if they do, in fact, use an “intent” requirement that looks something like this,

    then the vastly increased “quantity” identifying the chance of harm combined with this form of intent that is at very least indifferent to the consequences of one’s intentional actions that knowingly increase risk of harm actually does bear on our definition – on whether or not the action is considered to have the “quality” of violence.

    That’s my best guess at why quantity – as you identify it – might matter to distinctions most people might make between a bailiff taking a convicted defendant into custody and a kidnapper seizing a stranger.

  256. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal #251:

    Similarly, even if a particular unlawful kidnapping did not involve any actual instances of physical restraining, it’s still violence because the threat of physical restraining is still there.

    Many kidnappings are performed by a parent who has been denied custody, who is known to and trusted by the child, and who the child would, in at least some cases, stay with voluntarily. Thus there are at least some non-violent kidnappings which involve no use of the threat of violence.

    You need to amend your language. Kidnapping is not violence. It may, however be violent. That is, it may involve the use of violence. You keep doing this. ‘Government is violence’ is okay for a slogan, where grammatical correctness is not required or expected. When you get down to discussing the details, however, you really need to separate ‘acts which (may) involve violence,’ from violence itself, which is an act which may be employed to further the greater act.

  257. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    because EL is an idiot, but other people might actually want to explore the question:

    @Tony
    And thank you for answering. Guess we’re done. I might want to ask how the hell you think unlawful kidnapping doesn’t meet the WHO definition of violence when there’s the everpresent threat of physical restraining in kidnapping, but neither of us seem to care enough to have that conversation.

    Example: Court assigns custody of 2 week old to biological father. Father kidnaps child by lovingly picking up the baby at day-care and taking the baby home without legal authorization.

    Father locks the doors at night.

    Father places 2 week old child in a bed with railings to deliberately restrain the child’s freedom to look over the edge and then fall and crack the child’s own skull, as babies sometimes do.

    Moreover, the child is constrained by doors the child cannot hope to undue. The child is entirely dependent on the father as the child will literally die before managing to open (unaided) a door secured by traditional mechanisms.

    Verdict == Kidnapping
    Violence == Of course not, you stupid ass, EnlightenmentLiberal.

    My. I wonder how in the world WHO could fail to state overtly that kidnapping, all kidnapping, is by definition violence? Could it be that they, for some nefarious political reasons, are simply avoiding EnlightenmentLiberals eminently logical conclusions?

  258. Doug Hudson says

    Tony @ 235, also 239, I think we are on the same page, we just have slightly different ways of defining the “boundaries” of the word violence. I agree with you about spanking, by the way, though that question wasn’t intended as a “gotcha” of any sort.

    Also, since I was away from my computer, I didn’t have a chance to address the difference between violent kidnapping and non-violent kidnapping, but your comment 239 said it better than I would have anyway.

    With regard to incarceration, I think there is a similar distinction. Incarceration, in and of itself, is not violence (except, perhaps, violence to dignity and self-determination, but that’s a debate for a different time.) However, incarceration can lead to quite a bit of violence, both inmate on inmate and guard on inmate (and, rarely, inmate on guard.) Especially in the United States, prisons are so saturated with violence that it is understandable that a person might associate the mere fact of incarceration with violence (an association that someone in, say, Sweden probably wouldn’t make).

    Personally, though, I think that incarceration is still a useful concept, so automatically associating it with violence is not a useful approach. Rather, we need to deal with the violence that is secondary to incarceration, which is clearly possible (again, Sweden comes to mind.)

  259. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Shit, that’s funny, Daz, that we were typing the same thing at the same time.

    In any case, nice catch. It was pure genius of you to notice an easy example of non-violent kidnapping. I’m quite certain only the 2 or 3 most intelligent people in the world would have noticed that.

    In other news: Modesty. It’s my best quality.

  260. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz

    Many kidnappings are performed by a parent who has been denied custody, who is known to and trusted by the child, and who the child would, in at least some cases, stay with voluntarily. Thus there are at least some non-violent kidnappings which involve no use of the threat of violence.

    Children are different, and you know that. It is assumed that children cannot consent. They have not reached the age of consent. In your hypothetical example, what matters is not the consent of the child, but the consent of the legal guardian of the child, and in that sense the kidnapping is not voluntary.

    Kidnapping is violence.

  261. Doug Hudson says

    EL @260, You are truly a light shining against the darkness. Keep up your brave fight against all the other people in this thread who have pointed out all the ways that you are wrong–they are clearly just not as smart as your enlightened liberal brain.

  262. says

    CD:
    I’d say psychological harm should be included in the definition of violence. I look at the actions of those who support conversion therapy and the harm it has caused on many gay people (directly and indirectly) as an example of this.

  269. says

    Tony

    I’d say psychological harm should be included in the definition of violence. I look at the actions of those who support conversion therapy and the harm it has caused on many gay people (directly and indirectly) as an example of this.

    I’m not sure because, while harm is usually the result of violence, not all harm is caused by violence.
    To use a compeltely removed example, somebody breaking up with their partner might cause them severe psychological harm. It can break them. Yet it is not a form of violence. Personally I think that “abuse” covers it nicely. Ehm, the conversion therapy, not the breaking up.

  271. Doug Hudson says

    Giliell@269, Would you say that there can be a purely psychological violence? If so, then harm caused by “conversion” therapy is the result of this psychological violence, whereas the harm from a breakup is not.

    I proposed such a “psychic violence’ many comments up, but in retrospect, it might be better to keep the “physical harm” component of violence, and, as you suggest, use “abuse” for intended harm that doesn’t manifest physically.

    Otherwise, we end up with threats of violence being the same as violence, and we find ourselves agreeing with EL, and no one wants that.

    This latter part of the conversation has been quite interesting and helpful to me in identifying some unspoken assumptions I had that have proven to be incorrect. Thanks to Crip Dyke and Tony in particular, and to everyone else in general! (Cept maybe EL, but then again, without his blathering, we wouldn’t be having this conversation…)

  273. says

    Ok. I’ll give more thought as to whether or not psychological harm should be included in the definition of violence.

    ****
    Doug @271:

    This latter part of the conversation has been quite interesting and helpful to me in identifying some unspoken assumptions I had that have proven to be incorrect.

    I feel much the same way.
    In a roundabout way, I even have to thank EnlightenmentLiberal. For all that I disagree with much of what xe has said, it was hir comment here that led to this conversation.

  274. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Daz, Giliell, & Tony!

    I think what we’re struggling here is that Tony! has good reasons to include emotional/psychological harm…

    …but that is not yet the definition that is widely accepted.

    There are very good reasons (illustrated in part, I hope, by my hypothetical with the hypothetical Human Resources department engaging in very-not-hypothetical routine racism) how it may be easier to change the world for the better by constraining violence to the definition expected by the masses of people around us who **don’t** spend days discussing the nature of violence online. Avoiding defensiveness in order to get buy-in for positive change isn’t a small thing.

    But water boarding, for instance, causes severe psych/emo harm, and yet it leaves no bruises, breaks no bones. Nor is their an attempt to physically harm the person. Nor is their a strong likelihood of physical harm that the fucking torturers are ignoring. I sure as hell want to be able to call that violence.

    But wanting to call it that, or even crafting my personal definition of violence to include the actions of those vicious, malevolent fucking torturers who were at Guantanamo, isn’t the same choice that we would necessarily make in every situation. So we mull over whether we **should** define violence that way.

    But maybe a more useful question – given that “violence” already includes “stormy emotions” or “editing so as to change meaning” – we can talk about a definition of violence that includes psychological harm as one well-justified, well-supported definition that isn’t necessarily the end-all, be-all of violence definitions. We could also talk about a definition of violence that would include actions that cause a form of psychological harm that directly results from physical force (the fucking torturers and their fucking torture), but excludes psychological harm that does not directly result from physical force (breaking up with some horrendous excuse for a human being that you just found out tortured people at Guantanamo – or anywhere else).

    It’s completely valid to have more than one definition of torture and to admit that one is a better fit for some situations than others.

    Of course, you have to be honest about it if you’re switching definitions mid-discussion in a conversation like we’ve been having in TD, but merely **having** multiple definitions and admitting that they are not mere rewordings with identical definitional effect – that’s entirely fine, and, in fact, expected. Most English words have multiple definitions. It’s routine.

    We do the best we can at creating these definitions, and then we do the best we can to deploy them in our communication. Sometimes it’s for comedic effect, other times it’s just to chat, still other times it’s in service of creating a better world. As long as the instances of use are separate from each other, we don’t even have to announce that we’re using a different definition today than yesterday. It’s the way the internet preserves yesterday’s words for us to read today that makes it unethical for EL (or anyone) to use a different definition a day or two apart from a previous use.

    This is, effectively, one long conversation. That’s what would make it ethically mandatory (or at least ethically recommended) to make it clear during this thread when we switch from one definition to the next.

    Are any of those thoughts useful?

  275. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz in 263
    I might care enough to argue that there has been threats of force and actual force against the legal guardian insofaras their child has been taken. I might care enough to argue that threats of force and actual force, violent force, has been used against the child – the fact that the child seems to be cooperative is immaterial because the child cannot consent. Your reasoning seems to lead to mightily unintuitive conclusions – for example, similar IMHO-faulty reasoning would lead us to conclude that some cases of underage statutory rape are not actually instances of violence. Whereas, I would argue that the child cannot consent, and does not legally or morally know what is best for itself, and thus (for those reasons and others), it is an actual instance of violence regardless of the lack of apparent force and threats of force.

    Still, I realize this is an irrelevant tangent. Perhaps you’re right. Does this have anything to do with incarceration of adults? I meant to use unlawful kidnapping of adults as a compare-and-contrast for the lawful incarceration of adults. Perhaps some unlawful kidnappings of children are not violence, but that doesn’t address the assertion that all unlawful kidnappings of adults are violence, in order to set up my compare-and-contrast for the purposes of arguing that incarceration of adults is violence, in order to set up my argument that taxes are currently enforced with violence, in order to set up my eventual argument that with our technological development and human nature any effective tax collection enforcement scheme must involve violence.

    This isn’t that novel. I saw the problem of children way back when I first made the assertion. I hope we wouldn’t have to address children, but here we are. Here’s a similar freebie for you – what if someone kidnapped an unconscious person, say sleeping, took them somewhere, and brought them back, without any particular incident of bodily harm. Is that violence? Maybe not. Kind of unintuitive to say so, but I can run with that. Of course, it can lead to very weird corollaries, such as: if you drug someone and rape someone who is sleeping without them being immediately aware of it, then it’s still rape, but it’s not violence.

    But again, this freebie this doesn’t have anything really to do with my argument. This does not detract from my compare-and-contrast between kidnapping an adult and incarcerating an adult. Incarceration doesn’t involve adults being put into prison and somehow being unaware that they are in prison.

  276. Lofty says

    I violently rub the sleep from my eyes, let the early morning photons violently impact my retinas, violently sip my morning cuppa, and see that EL’s definition of violence still lies about 100 miles north of the North Pole.
    Violently.

  277. says

    CD @274:

    Are any of those thoughts useful?

    Understatement though it may be, I’m going with yes.
    For instance, this part is illuminating:

    I think what we’re struggling here is that Tony! has good reasons to include emotional/psychological harm…
    …but that is not yet the definition that is widely accepted.
    There are very good reasons (illustrated in part, I hope, by my hypothetical with the hypothetical Human Resources department engaging in very-not-hypothetical routine racism) how it may be easier to change the world for the better by constraining violence to the definition expected by the masses of people around us who **don’t** spend days discussing the nature of violence online. Avoiding defensiveness in order to get buy-in for positive change isn’t a small thing.

  278. consciousness razor says

    EL:

    Consciousness razor has already adopted the position that unlawful kidnapping on its own is not violence. I have nothing to say to that.

    I would use a word like “harm” instead or describe it unambiguously as “kidnapping.” It is also appropriate to call it a “forceful” act, in terms of constraining the person’s ability to escape from the kidnapper. If we have a certain kind of kidnapping that does involve what I would consider violence, involving injuries of some kind, then of course talking about those actions being “violent” is entirely appropriate.

    If it has anything to do with damaging property, we can talk about “damaging” it or “destroying” or whatever, while it would be inappropriate to use such words on people. So, stealing is something like “forceful confiscation of property” while kidnapping has to use different terms because we’re talking what happens to a person (or animal) instead of what happens to inanimate objects — different sorts of things happen in those different cases, so we use different terms for the sake of clarity, as well as for the sake of respecting the ethical boundaries between things that are agents are not agents, etc. Also, if any of that (or anything else) is threatened but does not occur in fact, we can also talk about such “threats.”

    A question about whether any such actions are legal or illegal is a question about what the law in fact is, and there is a further question about the morality of our laws: whether or not they are just. We can similarly talk about whether the laws are consistent with one another. Conflating any or all of these concepts, or using a single word for this and many other wildly different kinds of actions, is a mistake.

    The point is that we have a nice big English language, along with lots of other existing languages to borrow from, so there’s no problem extending our vocabulary however much we want, in order to distinguish between such an enormous array of different circumstances. Waving your hands and saying “it’s all violence!!!11!!” then expecting us to disprove it somehow is just a lot of assholery.

    You have nothing to say about that? If there were any point to the fucking discussion, wouldn’t talking about those sorts of things be exactly what we need to do?

  279. says

    CD.
    Absolutely. I think it bears to remember that words are not things out there in the world that we need to describe with scientific accuracy, but the tools we use to describe the world out there. Therefore the important question is “does this get the message across, are we meaningfully communicating?”
    That means that we occasionally need to state our working definitions. And that we need consistency, because without that, communication cannot happen.
    In the end, it does not matter if I would include purely psychological harm into my working definition of violence. When somebody says “Conversion therapy is psychological violence that greatly harms LGBTQ people”, it is mightily clear what they want to say.
    Problems arise, of course, when somebody’s “working definition” is actually not wprking because they have redefined the word into meaninglessness as EL has been doing here.

  280. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @consciousness razor
    I’m not entirely comfortable saying that damage to property cannot count as violence. I totally understand your position here though, and it’s not entirely unreasonable. I am partial and sympathetic to this position. That’s why I conscientiously took the path of focusing on incarceration and threat of incarceration, as I hoped that would be much more clear as violence. That plan didn’t work out so well.

    (If there wasn’t bigger fish to fry, I would make a bigger case that appropriation of property in at least some cases is violence, such as taking all of their food and causing hunger or starvation. Further, I would even argue that forcefully depriving someone of their favorite pillow (when that pillow is their private property) probably should count as violence. But again, bigger fish to fry.)

    I think most of the points of your post 278 are quite reasonable and accurate – except where you continue to assert that incarceration on its own, and kidnapping of an adult who is aware of the kidnapping on its own, do not count as violence. For that disagreement, I still don’t know what to say. Kidnapping of an adult who is aware of the kidnapping necessarily involves the everpresent threat of force intended to cause injury or deprivation. Without the threat of force nor actual force to enforce the kidnapping, then it is not kidnapping, and instead we would rightly describe the situation as “two acquaintances travelling together”. The act of kidnapping (specifically kidnapping an adult who is aware of the kidnapping) is violence. Even ignoring the deprivation criterion, it fits the WHO definition of “violence” to a T. Adding the deprivation criterion just makes my case stronger. It also fits my intuition of violence to a T. I still don’t understand how or why you disagree.

  281. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Wow, EL actually says something interesting and relevant: Let’s hit the bad first, but only because EL does say some productive things and all the thoughts are needed to clarify what’s going on and take the conversation further.

    So, the bad:

    Of course, it can lead to very weird corollaries, such as: if you drug someone and rape someone who is sleeping without them being immediately aware of it, then it’s still rape, but it’s not violence.

    It’s kind of stupid to miss the fact that the drugging is violence, duh.

    Still, despite EL’s paucity of imagination, it’s not hard to come up with a hypothetical that really does pose problems for the definitions of violence that include rape by definition. Say I’m brain dead (it was a stroke, caused by no one, so no violent initial injury), and I’ve been on life support for a while now. Say someone technically qualified looks at my brain scan and it’s clear that my brain itself has atrophied, that there is no possibility that I could “wake up” in any meaningful sense. There is literally no possibility of psychological harm because there’s no psyche left in me.

    Now, if that person chooses to rape me in such a way as to also carefully avoid physical harm, we have a really-truly non-violent rape. It’s also not such a bizarre hypothetical that it couldn’t happen in real life. In wealthy countries where people can be kept on life-support for years, and sometimes really are, rape of comatose patients is distressingly common. Most of those patients raped during coma **do** have a chance of waking up. I want people who rape comatose patients convicted of a crime and to never be allowed near a comatose patient again. But, whether the horrifyingly awful rapists end up convicted or not, it’s statistically certain that some raped patients don’t have a chance of waking up.

    So, a hypothetical in place of a real life example because I don’t happen to know of a real life example…and because it would be horrifyingly awful to use the real name of someone abused in such a situation.

    But still, this story places real hurdles in favor of defining rape as violence “by definition”
    -IFF; that is IF AND ONLY IF-
    “harm” is part of the definition of violence but not part of the definition of rape.

    This is merely one reason why I don’t require harm for something to be violence.

    Another bad thing which must be critiqued is this:

    Perhaps some unlawful kidnappings of children are not violence, but that doesn’t address the assertion that all unlawful kidnappings of adults are violence, …

    …I saw the problem of children way back when I first made the assertion. I hope we wouldn’t have to address children, but here we are.

    Permit me to translate:

    Ah! You’re pointing out that not all kidnapping are violent! yes, yes. I knew that when I proposed that all kidnappings were violent. But what I meant was the particular subset of kidnappings I had in mind – kidnappings of adults – and not “all kidnapping” were all kidnappings that count as violence. Sure I could have avoided implying “all kidnapping” or even added the word “adult” as a qualifier to let you know that I wasn’t talking about kidnapping children. But I didn’t. Because I didn’t want to talk about children. So I used language knowing it was false and hoping no one would notice because I thought it was a lot of work to type out “a-d-u-l-t”.

    Wow. Just wow.

    Also: adults with profound learning/mental disabilities that love their parents and aren’t aware of assigned custody. Same situation.

    Really, we’re at the point now where what the fuck is EL going to do, say, “well, all VIOLENT kidnappings are violent” and pretend we’re all thick?

    But let’s go further. That last one was as bad as EL gets in this. Having seen some of EL’s thinking, let’s get to where EL is offering thoughts that really do get us somewhere:

    I might care enough to argue that threats of force and actual force, violent force, has been used against the child – the fact that the child seems to be cooperative is immaterial because the child cannot consent.

    Okay, there’s still the definition problems that EL has, like where in the WHO definition is the idea of consent? (That definition is the one to which EL consented, right?) They include suicide as violence, fFs.

    But I **do** think consent is relevant to an understanding of violence. Here EL is defining the force used, as gentle and loving as it may be, as “violent” force because of lack of consent.

    I think the nature of the force used is relevant, even where consent does not exist. EL elsewhere wants to say that violence – at least threats of violence – must have been used against the legal guardian. But in point of fact, most parental kidnappings don’t involve contact with the other parent. There is no “stay away” phone call. There is no barging into a house looking for the kid. The child is simply not returned after visitation or is picked up from day-care or school by a parent not actually authorized to pick the child up from day-care or school. The legal guardian isn’t threatened or restrained in any way.

    So in this case where consent does not exist (EL rightly says that the child cannot meaningfully “consent” to such a kidnapping, even if the child is happy to go away with the parent) is gently lifting a baby from a day-care owned bassinet violence?

    From my perspective, that appears to make “violence” synonymous with “illegal”. I don’t accept it. I say this is non-violent.

    Cleverly (yes, I said it, don’t hit me over the head with it, you violent crowd, you) EL proceeds to extend this to statutory rape.

    What does it mean to say that a 15 year old attracted to, infatuated with, and in love with (yes, all 3) a 19 year old, and enthusiastically seeking sex with that 19 year old, was “violently” raped because of the existence of a law barring the sexual activity and the resulting lack of legal consent?

    I don’t know, but I guess that EL considers this violence. The expectation is that I will not consider this violence and that I will then be horrified by the conclusion that rape is not, in all cases, violence.

    But I’m not horrified at all to make factual statements such as, “According to the Oxford dictionary definition #1, this is not violence.” My stomach might churn a little to say that this is not violence according to my own definition, or my stomach might not, but either way the factual statement remains.

    What it does do is motivate us to think critically: when we say consent is relevant, do we mean legal consent? Do we mean meaningful and believable consent? What would be the distinctions between those 2 possibilities?

    I have no problem saying that statutory rape meets some definitions of violence but not others. In point of fact, I don’t actually think that such a rape is violence. However, I do understand the point of view of others that would think it outrageous to exclude any illegal sexual intercourse from a definition of violence. If such a person said that

    Rape, almost by definition, is violence

    I’d likely not utter a peep. I get it. I get that there are multiple definitions in the world and that all of them will have to decide at least some corner-cases differently from other definitions…or they wouldn’t actually be different definitions.

    I’m okay with it, and though I don’t call this particular statutory rape “violence” or “violent” [as “harm” is not a primary part of my definition of violence] I am not asserting that such a statutory rape will not (or even is unlikely to) cause harm. I’m not asserting such statutory rapes only ever cause very minor harm. I’m not including or excluding this particular rape and ones like it from the category “violence” on the basis of harm done or not done.

    As a “corner-case” I don’t find this one particularly difficult, but I do find it very helpful in identifying where definition X differs from definition Y, and I also think it raises interesting and important questions about the nature of consent and about which types of consent matter in which situations for which purposes.

  282. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    While skimming, I noticed this.
    @Crip Dyke

    It’s kind of stupid to miss the fact that the drugging is violence, duh.

    So, you argue that the administration of a drug to an already sleeping (unconscious) person without consent, where drug has no lasting effect, and where the drug clears the system before the person wakes normally – that is violence. However, you argue that penetration without consent to an unconscious person – that is not violence. Yea – I’m completely lost. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Are you using the WHO definition? Or are you using your other definition which is so complicated and has so many caveats that it would take you an entire book to specify it?

  283. Maureen Brian says

    EL @ 282,

    Drugging someone, awake or asleep, without their explicit consent is either poisoning or it’s practicing medicine without a licence. Both are crimes.

    Penetrating someone without consent is also a crime, a crime of violence. Where I am the maximum available sentence is imprisonment for life. It is rape.

  284. consciousness razor says

    EL:

    Kidnapping of an adult who is aware of the kidnapping necessarily involves the everpresent threat of force intended to cause injury or deprivation.

    Kidnapping isn’t limited to only adults who are aware of the situation. Indeed, it’s quite natural to talk about kids being kidnapped. If you’re not even up to the task of giving a general description of all forms of kidnapping (or whatever it may be), but only particular cases that interest you, then you won’t be able to compare one general class with another (e.g., kidnapping and incarceration). It might be convenient for you to do so, but it won’t actually get us anywhere.

    Also, as I already said, we can talk about threats of violence. If it involves those, then have it for all I care. The facts are different in such cases: there obviously is not in fact any violence when there is no violence but only a threat of it. As long as that is made abundantly clear, and you understand that facts do matter, it should probably be okay.

    But is possible that no such threats are made. Moreover, the example I gave before is not hypothetical or idly talking about mere “possibilities”: there are many real-world cases of people abducting children because they thought they should be their guardians. In such cases, they were not legally allowed to take the children from their current legal guardians (i.e., people who have the appropriate legal documents). It is simply not necessary that the person threatens the child, puts them into threatening situations, etc., much less is anything like that happening in fact (in addition to a threat) for us to talk about. Even if none of those conditions obtain, it still is kidnapping, because those are not necessary conditions.

    As a legal concept, there is also still a question, even if a particular case of is illegal, whether the person should kidnap them, since the laws aren’t designed to mark out such a boundary (or make predictions about it) in every conceivable particular circumstance. The child might well be better off with their “new parent,” but that person did not go through the proper legal channels to get this result. You can argue of course that is bad or unjust in terms of deteriorating the legal system or society or whatever, even if it doesn’t involve any direct harm or violence to the child at all.

    Anyway, that is kidnapping. When you talk about kidnapping categorically, in comparison to or in contrast with other categories, you must be talking about that as well as other instances of kidnapping which otherwise may not resemble it very much. If you’re not doing that, then you’re being confused or unclear or dishonest about what your claims are purportedly about.

    Without the threat of force nor actual force to enforce the kidnapping, then it is not kidnapping, and instead we would rightly describe the situation as “two acquaintances travelling together”.

    What does that have to do with violence? You’re not contradicting me when you say that there is force. But force is not violence. So what’s the problem?

  285. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    if you drug someone and rape someone who is sleeping without them being immediately aware of it

    My bad. I interpreted this as drugging someone and then, during a resulting drugged sleep, raping them. That colored how I discussed it. The drugging above may-or-may not be violence, given your intent as (reasonably, though ambiguously) expressed in your words. I could examine it but I’m not interested in doing so because I’m more interested in the question, “Can a non-violent rape exist?” than “Can a non-violent drugging exist?” Especially given that in the hypothetical above we don’t know **why** someone is drugging someone else. Is this a doctor doing the drugging for a good reason who later decides to rape? I just don’t care enough to wade through all the potential possibilities to arrive at a conclusion about this particular hypothetical drugging.

    Nonetheless, it seems that you think that the hypothetical’s potentially non-violent rape imposes some difficulty for me.

    It’s not really a “gotcha” for me. In what I wrote I made clear that I believe it’s not unreasonable to say that there are some rapes that do not count as violence. I’m certainly fine with – as I also said – definitions of violence that include any and all rape by definition, but such a definition wouldn’t be my first choice if I was going to write about violence.

    Factual questions of interpretation, such as “does this meet the Oxford definition” are actually solvable in some real sense. Creating a definition is not a solvable problem. We create definitions based on considering both what we want to say and what we think people will hear/understand.

    I could of course define the color “pink” to include all rape, but regardless of my intent, uses of pink wouldn’t be sufficient on their own to alert my readers that I am discussing rape. Being angry with my readers for failing to think through all the implications of the color pink is just petulant.

    I’d rather actively consider what my audience will hear/understand and take it productively into account.

  286. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @consciousness razor, quoting EL

    Without the threat of force nor actual force to enforce the kidnapping, then it is not kidnapping, and instead we would rightly describe the situation as “two acquaintances travelling together”.

    What does that have to do with violence? You’re not contradicting me when you say that there is force. But force is not violence. So what’s the problem?

    You don’t see?

    If we limit kidnappings to only kidnappings that involve violence, then all kidnappings are violence. And thus EL is right. Yet again. Wow, can’t you rhetoric?

  287. Jacob Schmidt says

    CD

    But I **do** think consent is relevant to an understanding of violence.

    At this point I’m convinced the term is utterly irredeemable by means other than fiat. The category is too muddled.

  288. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Maureen Brian:

    Drugging someone, awake or asleep, without their explicit consent is either poisoning or it’s practicing medicine without a licence. Both are crimes.

    Yeah, but next up is, “What if it’s the patient’s nurse, acting on behalf of both patient and physician, according to the physician’s orders, following a treatment plan to which the patient expressly consented, which happens to also cause the patient to fall into a drugged and vulnerable sleep, which the nurse later decides is the perfect opportunity for rape? What about that drugging, you clumsy-thinker-you?”

  289. says

    Actually, in the real world “drugging” is more like the taking of the gun and shooting while vaguely pointing it in the direction of the person. There is no cas where you can know that this drug will not harm this person. Because bodies are not mathematical equations.

    +++

    As a legal concept, there is also still a question, even if a particular case of is illegal, whether the person should kidnap them, since the laws aren’t designed to mark out such a boundary (or make predictions about it) in every conceivable particular circumstance. The child might well be better off with their “new parent,” but that person did not go through the proper legal channels to get this result.

    There are also quote frankly situations where the law is fucked up. Or fucks you up. When my eldest was born, two babies were switched in a nearby hospital. Yep, stuff you’d think only happens in bad movies. It was only discovered after 7 or 8 months and the law clearly stated that each set of parents had to return the “false” child. When I heard that I looked at my kid and thought “which country would be safe if we needed to run?”

  290. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @consciousness razor
    I apologize for the length. I know people yell at me for length. However, when I try to be brief, assholes like Crip Dyke dishonestly distort the meanings of my words and play dishonest word games. I suppose the longer this goes on, the more caveats I’ll have to add.

    Again, my end goal is to argue that any just and good government over a large non-trivial population of real humans in the real world with our level of technology must involve enforcement which qualifies as violence.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that conclusion, which is that governments over large non-trivial populations of real humans in the real world with our level of technology require taxation.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that any (effective) tax collection enforcement over large non-trivial populations of real humans in the real world with our current technology must involve violence.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that current United States tax enforcement involves the true threat of incarceration against all people who are lawfully required to file income tax reports.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which was that lawful incarceration of a legally-competent / morally-competent adult is violence.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that unlawful kidnapping of a legally-competent / morally-competent adult who is aware of the kidnapping is violence.

    PS: Again, I think this is the truth, and I think that generally the best way to change public opinion is not to lie to them, nor simplify the truth so much that it become effectively untrue. That’s condescending. Rather, I want to promote and endorse a radical Marxist analysis of the problems of society, because I think that’s the best starting point to fix it. It’s a large part of my justification for wanting to reduce prison populations. It’s a large part of my justification for wanting wealth redistribution and government funding of the public good.

    I particularly object to many objections from Crip Dyke which IMHO are tantamount to (my phrasing) “The sheeple are too stupid to understand the complexities of radical Marxism critiques, and so we should prepare a ‘useful truth’ for them that is palatable to them.”

  291. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Giliell in 289

    Actually, in the real world “drugging” is more like the taking of the gun and shooting while vaguely pointing it in the direction of the person. There is no cas where you can know that this drug will not harm this person. Because bodies are not mathematical equations.

    Ok. Good point. Forgot about that.

    @Crip Dyke in 285
    Agreeable.

    Minus any lingering disagreement about the violence inherent in incarceration and enforcement of incarceration (IMHO “incarceration” should include “enforcement of incarceration”, just like “taxes” should include “enforcement of taxes”).

  292. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Quoting me:

    Rather, I want to promote and endorse a radical Marxist analysis of the problems of society, because I think that’s the best starting point to fix it.

    And I want to promote it because it’s true.

  293. Maureen Brian says

    Crip Dyke @ 288,

    How right you are!

    When, way up there somewhere, (before 10 a.m.GMT) Enlightenment LIBERAL asserted LIBERTARIAN values and claimed in almost the next sentence to be a SOCIALIST, I came to the provisional conclusion that we are dealing with an illiterate.

  294. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    When, way up there somewhere, (before 10 a.m.GMT) Enlightenment LIBERAL asserted LIBERTARIAN values and claimed in almost the next sentence to be a SOCIALIST, I came to the provisional conclusion that we are dealing with an illiterate.

    There are some form of Marxism that have an anarchist bent. They lack the basic problem of either end of the political spectrum, namely the inability to form stable, working societies based on historical evidence. Pity EL never learned the value of a reality check….

  296. says

    opposablethumbs

    I’m beginning to feel this thread may be invaded by the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog at any moment. (“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being oppressed!”)

    EL had used the exact phrase (Marx, via Monty Python) twice in two separate comments before my mocking of it.

    Quiz: who said the following?

    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

    Of course, they probably meant to say government is almost by definition violence but that wouldn’t have been quite so pithy. And they probably wouldn’t have gone on to say that all private property is violence, but would view the enforcement of property rights to be legal. Who would have thought radical Marxists and doctrinaire trickle-down economists would find such happy agreement? At this stage I figure the secondary discussion away from the person who inadvertently started it is much more valuable having, and therefore it is violence.

    Crip Dyke
    MY generation would never embrace The WHO and then disregard them.
    Agreed, they were the definite article.

  297. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that conclusion, which is that governments over large non-trivial populations of real humans in the real world with our level of technology require taxation.

    And you’ve done that. In fact, you’ve done more than that: you have **successfully** argued that point.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that any (effective) tax collection enforcement over large non-trivial populations of real humans in the real world with our current technology must involve violence.

    And you’ve done that. In fact, you’ve done more than that: you have **somewhat successfully** argued that point.

    I argued above that it is only upon reaching our level of technological and economic sophistication that we really can have a truly non-violent tax system that functions well, functions as fairly as a human enterprise can, and functions so as to bring in sufficient funds for a government to operate. So you haven’t convinced me, but I’m sure there are people who agree with you.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that current United States tax enforcement involves the true threat of incarceration against all people who are lawfully required to file income tax reports.

    And you’ve done that. In fact, you’ve done more than that: you have **somewhat successfully** argued that point. I think most people here believe that it’s a true but trivial threat for the vast majority of persons.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which was that lawful incarceration of a legally-competent / morally-competent adult is violence.

    And you’ve done that. Unfortunately for you, you have **unsuccessfully** argued that point. Most here disagree that any incarceration of legally and morally competent adults is violence in every single case. There appears to be considerable variance when you get into “as practiced” and into corner-cases like prolonged solitary confinement.

    I wanted to argue for a stepping stone to that stepping stone, which is that unlawful kidnapping of a legally-competent / morally-competent adult who is aware of the kidnapping is violence.

    And you’ve done that. Rather haltingly and incompetently, requiring multiple attempts to revise and reduce your earlier broader claim until you arrived at this more limited claim. However, even if just here in this paragraph, you have now done this. Unfortunately for you, you have **unsuccessfully** argued that point. I actually believe you could successfully argue this limited point, or if not you, at least someone rhetorically competent could do so. But since only very recently you were still revising this claim to reach a more limited, defensible position, there hasn’t been time for people to respond to the claim to determine your success. Moreover, your inelegant retreat hasn’t won you any rhetorical admirers and your readers are less likely to be predisposed to adopting your position than they might previously have been.

    Again, my end goal is to argue that any just and good government over a large non-trivial population of real humans in the real world with our level of technology must involve enforcement which qualifies as violence.

    And you’ve done that. Will you end now?

  298. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Maureen Brian
    Get better at reading comprehension. I have never described myself as libertarian or anarchist. I have consistently described myself as holding the position that we need more wealth redistribution done by the government, and better (and probably more) funding for the public good by the government.

    From literally my very first post in Thunderdone on this topic to now, I have consistently upheld these policies proposals.

    @Nerd
    Yep, and there are other forms of Marxism which share the same language and vocabulary with some libertarians, because the libertarian analysis of the situation and the language of that analysis is right. I agree with their analysis. However, I profoundly disagree with their proposed solutions.

  299. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Maureen Brian:

    Enlightenment LIBERAL asserted LIBERTARIAN values and claimed in almost the next sentence to be a SOCIALIST, I came to the provisional conclusion that we are dealing with an illiterate.

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Get better at reading comprehension. I have never described myself as libertarian or anarchist.

    Um… The statements “asserted LIBERTARIAN values” and “described myself as libertarian” are not in fact synonymous.

    Reading comprehesions, definitionally thy numeral EnlightenmentLiberal delenda est.

  300. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    EL, if you don’t like being called liberturd or anarchist, quit sounding like them. Get to your point with third party evidence, or just shut the fuck up. You are doing nothing but JAQING off.

  301. Grewgills says

    @EL various
    AGAIN in PRACTICE the IRS DOES NOT imprison wage earners. The IRS GARNISHES their wages to pay the back taxes and fines. Monies are simply withheld from their wages. That is absolutely NOT violence, period.
    If someone is self employed then incarceration is a possibility down the line, though it isn’t very likely.
    Defining something in its entirety as violence because violence* might be used to enforce it in a rather small minority of cases is ridiculous.
    * I’m still not entirely on board with how you are classifying violence. Your classification seems to include putting a baby in their crib for nap time when they want to stay up and play a bit longer. They are being held behind bars against their will after all.

  302. Maureen Brian says

    Enlightenment Liberal @ 298,

    Another pub quiz question for you.

    Who said, ” c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” and in what content?

  303. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And EL, I was an undergraduate during the ‘Nam war radicalization of campuses, at a campuses with a large contingent of then Marxists. I’m still waiting for anything sounding like Marxist/Socialist from you. So far:
    .
    ..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    ..
    .
    .
    *Crickets chirring*

  304. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Crip Dyke in 297
    I’ll engage as long as others do. I don’t plan to spam.

    It’s also particularly frustrating that you mock me so and ridicule me for holding outrageous positions, when your summary states that I am right or somewhat right on all of my pertinent points.

    I am still quite ignorant concerning several of your beliefs. IMHO, if you accept the following premises (and I don’t know if you do accept some of these premises):

    * the United States government regularly issues true threats of incarceration to all citizens who are lawfully require to file income tax reports, and

    * incarceration of persons who willfully refuse to file income tax reports counts as violence,

    * and threats of violence are violence,

    then I do not understand how you can escape the conclusion that the United States government regularly employs violence against a large portion, close to half, of its citizens.

    Of course, we still need a little more work to generalize this property as a necessary property of all realistic governments. Earlier, you made reference to something like the idea that all of the country’s currency could be digitized, and thus tax collection enforcement is a simple matter of electronically transferring funds.

    Is the country’s technological currency system controlled wholly by the government? If not that adds another spot where the government needs enforcement, enforcement which is violence. We’ll assume that the government wholly controls that.

    Still, that leaves the problem of under-the-counter payment. It is true that it is made more difficult when money is digitized and controlled by the a central computer system controlled by the government. However, at that point, I might expect criminals to start using foreign money. Ok – we’ll also suppose every country does this, so no foreign money option.

    At that point, I do expect a sizeable underground black market to arise, even if it needs to go back to the barter system. Even here, there will be a need for enforcement and threats of enforcement, and the only effective enforcement will qualify as violence (threats of force and/or actual force which counts as violence).

    IMHO, the only thing that will obviate this is something which obviates the need for taxation itself, or something which at least greatly reduces the burden of taxation. We’re nowhere close yet. As long as the burden of taxation is substantial, there will be people who try to subvert it, and government will have to make an example of them with actual violent force, in order to make credible its threat of violent enforcement against the rest.

  305. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    *for the lurkers*
    Why do I say “then Marxists”? Now they are almost all RWA rethuglicans, if not liberturds/teabaggers.

  306. Grewgills says

    @CD, Nerd, and Maureen Brian
    EL didn’t assert libertarian values. He used one part of libertarian reasoning, that taxation is violence. He stated that it was a justified violence. He further stated that he believes in tax rates which libertarians would all consider confiscatory. This is absolutely not asserting libertarian values. I think EL is wrong, but he is far from a libertarian or a supporter of libertarian values.

  307. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Grewgills

    AGAIN in PRACTICE the IRS DOES NOT imprison wage earners. The IRS GARNISHES their wages to pay the back taxes and fines. Monies are simply withheld from their wages. That is absolutely NOT violence, period.

    We just discussed this. Filing an income tax report is an integral part to the tax collection process. Continued willful refusal to filing an income tax report and continued willful refusal to submit to the authority of the IRS and cooperate with the IRS will eventually be met with incarceration. This is well known to all. It is a threat to anyone who is lawfully required to file an income tax report. Because we know that the government will actually carry through on it (eventually), it also constitutes a true threat.

    The WHO definition clearly states that threats of force count just as much as actual force when determining if something is violence (subject to the other conditions of the definition).

    IMO, choices made under duress are not free choices, and the choice made to pay taxes is made under duress. This is part of my intuition that threats of incarceration are violence.

    …

    @Crip Dyke

    Um… The statements “asserted LIBERTARIAN values” and “described myself as libertarian” are not in fact synonymous.

    I never asserted libertarian values. Instead, I asserted conventional Marxist critiques of government and society, which do have a strong relationship to the critiques of libertarians. I can identify problems which are also identified in libertarian critiques without also endorsing libertarian values and policy proposals.

  308. Grewgills says

    @EL

    the United States government regularly issues true threats of incarceration to all citizens who are lawfully require to file income tax reports

    In PRACTICE absofuckinglutely NOT. In PRACTICE there are threats of fines and garnishment of wages for the vast majority of citizens required to file income tax reports.

    incarceration of persons who willfully refuse to file income tax reports counts as violence

    It is possible that if incarceration were resisted the enforcement of that incarceration could result in violence. That is a few steps removed though and only involves a relatively small minority of those legally bound to file taxes.

    It seems that in your schema all laws are violence, even those whose punishment is exclusively a fine because down the line if the person refuses to pay they could be imprisoned. Is that correct?
    In this schema it would also be violence for any person or business to have any rule that would result in expulsion from their premises, because if they refused to leave some force might be used to eject them. Is this also correct?
    If so, your definition of violence is so broad as to become near meaningless.

  309. says

    Grewgills

    EL didn’t assert libertarian values. He used one part of libertarian reasoning, that taxation is violence. He stated that it was a justified violence. He further stated that he believes in tax rates which libertarians would all consider confiscatory. This is absolutely not asserting libertarian values. I think EL is wrong, but he is far from a libertarian or a supporter of libertarian values.

    Exactly. I too, think EL is wrong (because he is using an unreasonable definition of violence, for one thing), but his assertions of wanting “small” government and that various things such as government, taxation and possibly unlimited rice pudding are violence, do make him sound like any little tinpot Taxed Enough Already whinger. It’s rather comical.

  310. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Maureen Brian
    I have developed most of these ideas independently, and with a random assorted list of random readings, and with random interactions with strangers such as this one.

    My brother is much more knowledgeable about Marxism and communism than I am. For example, he’s always annoyed when I declare that Marx promoted communism, and he’s quick to point out that Engels was much more responsible for the communism content of the Communist Manifesto, and that Marx was much more concerned with the critique of current society rather than particular programs to bring about change. Is that right? Not sure – I think yes based on what I just read on Marx from the Stanford Encyclopedia.

    From very limited sources (including the manifesto itself and other sources, some of which I cannot remember), it seems that the best way to describe this aspect of my philosophy is radical Marxism in critique, but not policy. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.

    Who said, ” c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” and in what content?

    I am sorry that I cannot answer your question, because I do not know. I am no expert in the writings of Marx, nor Marxist literature.

    All I know is that it roughly translates to “That is me, I am not Marxist”.

  311. Grewgills says

    @EL #307
    Once again, NO. In practice*, continued refusal to file forms (if your wages are large enough to attract attention) will result in an audit followed by assessment of fines and garnishment of wages.

    * Meaning what actually happens in the real world that we live in, rather than some theoretical possible world where the IRS behaves in a different way to the way they actually behave in this one.

  312. consciousness razor says

    MHO, if you accept the following premises (and I don’t know if you do accept some of these premises):

    * the United States government regularly issues true threats of incarceration to all citizens who are lawfully require to file income tax reports, and

    * incarceration of persons who willfully refuse to file income tax reports counts as violence,

    * and threats of violence are violence,

    No. So we’re done here?

    Could we go back to discussing your presuppositionalism? That was extremely ludicrous and tiresome, but at least it wasn’t utterly repugnant. I think it would be more pleasant, since violence isn’t just some abstraction for me, to jam into an argument wherever I want by mangling the ordinary concepts people actually use to describe such important real events beyond recognition. I also don’t equate things that involve no actual violence with violence, since being clear and consistent and truthful requires that we don’t suppose right from the start that P = not-P.

  313. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    All I know is that it roughly translates to “That is me, I am not Marxist”.

    Well DUH., What you are is a confused liar and bullshitter sending out mixed signals, NONE OF WHICH ARE COHERENT. Make up your mother fucking mind on your beliefs and live with the consequences. Like any intellectually honest person….

  314. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Grewgills

    In PRACTICE absofuckinglutely NOT. In PRACTICE there are threats of fines and garnishment of wages for the vast majority of citizens required to file income tax reports.

    Do I need to link to the particular part of the U.S.C. again which makes it known that willful failure to file an income tax report can be punished with up to 1 year of incarceration? The threat has been publicly made.

    Do I need to ask a random person on the street what they expect to happen if they continually refuse to file an income tax report, refuse to pay the fines, refuse to submit to the authority of the tax court, etc.? I suspect most of them will know that it will eventually end in prison. Thus the threat is known to most.

    Does the government regularly follow through on this threat? Is the threat credible? Yes.

    Again, the fact that almost every person submits to the authority of the IRS after being caught cheating on their taxes has no bearing to the true threat that the government makes against continued willful non-compliance. Kent Hovind is anecdotal evidence of that. Several of the sovereign citizen tax advisors sitting in prison is evidence of that.

    It is possible that if incarceration were resisted the enforcement of that incarceration could result in violence.

    Again, under the W.H.O definition, and under my intuition, (true) threats of violence are violence. The question of whether there is any actual physical resistance or any actual physical enforcement is irrelevant.

    It seems that in your schema all laws are violence, even those whose punishment is exclusively a fine because down the line if the person refuses to pay they could be imprisoned. Is that correct?

    Yes. Someone used the example of speed limits as an attempted reductio ad absurdum. I took that head on, and simply declared that speed limits are enforced with what one might call violence.

    Of course, as I noted then, speed limits are much closer to the usual notions of justified self defense, and I expect that there will be some additional contention on whether forceful physical justified self defense counts as violence or not. Under the W.H.O. definition, it does count as violence, and thus speed limits and the associated enforcement of speed limits qualifies as violence.

    In this schema it would also be violence for any person or business to have any rule that would result in expulsion from their premises, because if they refused to leave some force might be used to eject them. Is this also correct?

    Now you’re getting it!

    Of course, this should have been evident based on my earlier assertions that all private property and enforcement of private property qualifies as violence. The example I gave is that it is violence to rope off a piece of land and threaten to shoot anyone who comes on, and it is violence even if you merely threaten to ticket and fine anyone for trespassing who trespasses on your land.

    If so, your definition of violence is so broad as to become near meaningless.

    Politely disagreed. Rather, I think it is important to have this broad definition to help inform us of our actions and to require us to think “is this violence justified?” when we partake in violence. I think it’s vitally important to think about private property in terms of violence, because that is IMHO the basis for denying the libertarian position that private property rights should be inviolable. Rather, because private property rights are based on violence, private property rights should be carefully controlled and constructed in order to benefit the common good and not the elite rich few and with as little violence as possible.

    Violence is an inescapable part of being human in society.

  315. Maureen Brian says

    Enlightenment Liberal.

    Look it up. It is crucial to any understanding of the promiscuous use of the label Marxist by all sorts of people with wildly differing ideas. Google can help.

  317. says

    Grewgills @301:

    AGAIN in PRACTICE the IRS DOES NOT imprison wage earners. The IRS GARNISHES their wages to pay the back taxes and fines. Monies are simply withheld from their wages. That is absolutely NOT violence, period.

    Let me channel EL here-
    “Even when the IRS simply garnishes wages, the threat of incarceration is still present. And as we all know as I know, both incarceration and the threat of incarceration qualify as violence. And taxes are violence. And government is, almost by definition, violence. You’ll recall that I have redefined violence to the point that it is meaningless.”

  318. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, when will you get to your real point EL. With solid acceptable definitions and other evidence?

  320. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    you mock me so and ridicule me for holding outrageous positions, when your summary states that I am right or somewhat right on all of my pertinent points.

    I mock you for making outrageous statements. “Taxation is violence” is an outrageous statement, and quite mockable, even if your actual position (not your rhetorical slogan) is that real-life tax enforcement inevitably involves some violence. I am quite upfront when I’m mocking you and about what.

    You chided Maureen Brian for reading comprehension problems, when the only example you provide is that you did not identify yourself as libertarian. Maureen Brian never once, not remotely, claimed you identified yourself as libertarian. In fact, the reason she concluded you were illiterate was very specifically because you **don’t** identify yourself as libertarian and **do** identify your self as socialist while using a ‘nym that employs “liberal” and rhetoric (Maureen said “values” but I think “rhetoric” is nearer the mark) that is libertarian.

    Since she was very explicit that it is that you **don’t** identify as libertarian that she finds evidence of lack of literacy, insisting that, au contraire, mon frere! you in fact **don’t** identify as libertarian is just plain funny.

    I said your “Government is violence” formulation was bizarre. The fact that other people have also used that formulation is not proof per se that it is non-bizarre (though if enough people did so, since “bizarre” carries strong connotation of rareness or statistical improbability, that might be evidence it is non-bizarre).

    Daz, understanding what you meant, thought I was disagreeing with your conclusion about governments, in practice, employing and deploying violence. Perhaps colored by Daz’s response, you, likewise, assumed that I’m disagreeing with those conclusions. However, you hadn’t presented those statements when I made the initial statement that your phrasing was “bizarre” especially in light not merely of the “is violence” but the addition of “by definition” which means we’re no longer talking about mere practical examples, but any government which one could theorize.

    Eventually Daz got it that I was merely saying the sentence was bizarre, not every political thought you’ve ever had about violence and government. But you clung to the idea that I was dishonest because – when you and Daz in an attack on my position that was, simply, your phrase was bizarre and necessitates a “bizarre” definition of violence if its going to make sense – I actually had the temerity to talk about some of the other issues raised that I found interesting to address. You said I “started with” things that were, in fact, only very recent comments at the point you were describing the arguments I “started with”. Also, you ignored the fact that I was not being dishonest, I started having one conversation, and I was misconstrued, and I followed the path of the persons misconstruing me (in part) in hopes of shining a light back to a more reasonable place. That’s not dishonest.

    Moreover, I didn’t contradict my earlier positions by taking additional positions on unrelated issues.

    You, however, in numerous places back away from earlier statements to make more limited statements **without bothering to indicate that this is a change of positions**. You could gain great respect by, instead of accusing people of “word games” you could garner quite a lot of respect and support merely acknowledging,

    “Wow, you’re right about kids. My bad for writing over inclusively. But let me re-present my original thesis: My original thesis is about incarceration and it is X. I don’t need the illegal, non-violent taking of a child to be considered violence in order to prove X. All I really need to do is prove this lesser statement about kidnappings of certain adults, given their awareness of kidnappings. If you concede on this more limited claim, then I think my position X on incarceration is well supported.”

    Your refusal to ever grant any victory at all to any rhetorical opponent strikes me – and many others – as petulant. In a number of subsidiary cases where you change your argument without acknowledging that you are changing your argument – it even strikes multiple people in this thread as dishonest.

    When I chose to mock you, I was quite open in my mockery. You critique mocking, but you yourself said that you wanted to mock consciousness razor. That makes it seem as if you are engaging in special pleading:

    I can mock others, if I think I have sufficient reason, and sufficient reason is entirely determined by me b/c when I said I would mock consciousness razor I certainly didn’t poll people about it or attempt to justify my desire through any particular thing. However, holy I am Groot!, Batman, what’s with this person mocking me? That’s clearly unfair.

    This special pleading is also experienced by people reading this thread as dishonest. It makes you terribly unsympathetic, and, frankly, makes me want to mock you even more.

    And yet, I won’t mock you if you don’t say stupidly mockable things like

    “Maureen has reading comprehension problems because she’s claiming that I said something that I clearly didn’t say. Where was she claiming that? Well you can just look at the bit I block quoted in which she says nothing like that and even relies on the opposite to make her point. Isn’t that terrible reading comprehension on Maureen Brian’s part?”

    Further, to the extent that I do mock you, please note that I mock myself quite frequently. I also mock many others – I mocked either myself or pHred or both of us (really, the target of the mockery is open to interpretation here) in my #174 in discussing that delicious tea that tastes so much of fireplace ash.

    Giliell mocks herself, or me, or both when discussing orange in chocolate.

    Mockery is all over, and to the extent that you’re not perceived to be dishonest, any mockery will be in good spirits and with good will, similar to the mockery I employ when being playful with others on Pharyngula.

    You’re not a special snowflake. When you say things like, “Other people have a reading comprehension problem” and make your case by severely distorting what that person said, it will almost certainly be mocked. But it can be mocked with love – all of us make mistakes.

    You don’t get love because you come across as a jerk, not least (at least for me) by accusing me of dishonesty and of ***never not once not even at the beginning*** having any intent to honestly engage. I frankly know quite well whether or not I had an intent to engage honestly at the beginning. If my intention was to honestly engage and I read you saying it wasn’t as if you know my thoughts better than I, I’m going to react badly.

    It’s your tough luck that at least some of my mockery is actually effective.

    So I won’t promise not to mock. Even if I agreed with every one of your more limited conclusions, and even if I thought you’d been open and forthright and honest throughout this, I’d still mock you. I’d just limit it to those times when, being a human being, you wrote something silly on accident. And then I’d do it with love.

    The rest of the time, when you wrote something with which I disagree but which isn’t, in fact, silly, I would employ something other than mockery to make my point.

    Moving on to another thing which I think is important:

    I am still quite ignorant concerning several of your beliefs.

    That may be so, and I’m not objecting to your request as formulated in your comment #304, but too often during this thread you have portrayed your lack of knowledge about my position on X as being a failing on my part.

    That, frankly, strikes me (and I suspect some others) as really outrageous and offensive entitlement. You don’t have the right to know anything about me. If I so choose not to tell you X, I’m not doing anything wrong.

    Now, if I make the statement that you are wrong to fail to classify X as violence – or to classify X as violence – then I’ve made an unsupported statement. It’s quite reasonable to ask what definition I’m using to conclude that. It’s reasonable because, at least in part, i don’t know if you’re criticizing my process or if we would both arrive at the same conclusion if we were both merely using the same definition.

    If I make more than merely the statement that you are wrong about some rhetorical point, but actually say that your position is unreasonable or dishonest, then you’re actually calling me unreasonable or dishonest, and there’s likely to be some emotion behind the request.

    Nonetheless, I don’t have any **entitlement** to this information.

    Thus, when someone says that they are explicitly not going to engage, when someone specifically say, “I don’t want to talk to you,” as I did in the last TD (although I did say I would reengage if you ever gave a definition of violence and made an honest attempt to defend certain positions…and you at least gave a definition of violence and seemed to be coming slightly around towards more explicit engagement with others’ positions) then declaring that you still want my position on X is freakishly weird, creepily disturbing, and appears to show a great deal of entitlement. I’m not conversing with you, and yet somehow I’m not being fair to you by not giving you information X?

    Seriously, what’s that about? Do you even see that other people would consider that creepy entitlement to the thoughts of a separate person?

    You earned all kinds of ill-will from me with that shit.

    Respectfully ask for my opinion on something, i might give it to you. When i say I’m not going to talk to you anymore and you insist that i talk to you? That’s just fucking wrong. it’s ethically wrong. You may, of course, do it if you like, but then deal with the consequences that you’re making a decision others consider unethical and they might not like you very much when you do.

    Any mockery at that point is almost certainly likely to be skewed towards the unloving, ill-willed version.

    You have power in this conversation. Acknowledge your rhetorical opponents. Don’t pick some random definition by WHO – especially when you claim to be confused by it – if you want us to understand your position you have to tell us what definition **you are actually using in your thought process**. Then we can check your work. Then we can decide if your methodologies and or definitions are better than ours. Having different methodologies and definitions, we might even then conclude to join you on tactics, who knows? You have a chance to actually accomplish something when you make your process understandable. If your process is not comprehensible, but we happen to accept conclusion C1, you can’t change our minds about any C2 with which we happen to disagree. You think C1 logically leads to C2, but it obviously doesn’t for us if we start out agreeing about C1 but not C2.

    Repeatedly stating C1 and C2 doesn’t help. Showing the actual definitions (which are, in this case, your premises) and actual steps you use to argue from these definitions to your C2, that might actually win you some support. Maybe it won’t. I think that your definitions of violence aren’t tenable because I think that people in the real world don’t actually use the word that way. But mine isn’t the only reasonable definition of violence. Other people, if you take the time to go inside your own head enough to figure out just what you’re thinking when you think of “violence” and then write that down in the form of a definition, might find that their positions aren’t as far from yours as they thought.

    But you just throw out examples, typically examples that you think are already winners, rather than taking the time to show your work about how you picked that example and how that example proves X. It’s sloppy. For a while that’s fine, but people get bored and you lose good will and lose audience that way as well.

    If you don’t want us to understand, fine. But if you blather on at length without intending that anyone else understand you, that itself would be bizarre, and therefore mockable.

    In any case, that’s more than I wanted to say. I don’t think you’re predestined to be mocked here forever, not even by me, but accusing others of what seem to be your faults and making statements that seem rife with creepy entitlement are losing you a lot of good will … and failing to take the necessary steps that allow others to reproduce your work and try out your way of looking at things is also losing you arguments.

    So why not step up and change what you write and how you write it? Try that for a bit.

  321. says

    Given that way back at comment 53 I asked for an end-goal, I would like to thank EL for being so candid as to write, some two hundred comments downthread, at 290:

    Again, my end goal is to argue that any just and good government over a large non-trivial population of real humans in the real world with our level of technology must involve enforcement which qualifies as violence.

    Now I can agree with almost all of this statement, but the stumbling block in that thorny insistence that “enforcement […] qualifies as violence”. I could for example, argue that (in keeping with the stages of moral development which anteprepro helpfully outlined upthread at 146) the enforcement of just and good government is something that reasonable citizens would readily consent to in consideration of their own interests and altruistically, those of their fellow citizens for their mutual welfare, so that the imposition of laws restricting freedoms is therefore not violence because (assuming that enforcement is in fact, just and good in practice) it has been consented to. (I will ignore the lower ‘stage of moral development’-type argument that since no one consented to have government in the first place, and they were born into a society which already was governed, that consent could therefore not have been meaningfully given. I suppose that would have corollaries such as, being born is an act done by one’s parents against one’s consent, therefore life is violence. That doesn’t seem a viable road worth hoeing, though.)

    However, this is not really a unique insight in to the dilemma of society and governance and in support of that idea I’d like to call to the Thunderdome star witness, John Stuart Mill:

    WHAT, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?
    Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.
    Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.

    Even Mill wasn’t silly enough to reflexively define taxation as violence.

  322. says

    [citation needed]
    Forgot to put in the link to Mill, On Liberty, chapter IV (Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual).

  323. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    @Crip Dyke
    Um… The statements “asserted LIBERTARIAN values” and “described myself as libertarian” are not in fact synonymous.
    I never asserted libertarian values. Instead, I …[blah, blah, blah].

    EXACTLY.

    And if you had said to Maureen:

    You have a reading comprehension problem. I never asserted libertarian values, I [insert your blah, blah, blah here]

    where your “blah blah blah” said something about how you use particular pieces of rhetoric rather than about how you identify, that would have been a good comeback.

    But what you identified as contradicting Maureen Brian wasn’t your use of

    conventional Marxist critiques of government and society, which do have a strong relationship to the critiques of libertarians.

    You didn’t even mention those when you asserted Maureen Brian’s lack of reading comprehension. I thought you had an argument against Maureen Brian’s reading comprehension, which is why, Grewgills, defending you, said:

    EL didn’t assert libertarian values. He used one part of libertarian reasoning,

    You couldn’t have known it at the time that you critiqued this particular bit of mockery, but I was, while you were writing, currently crafting a comment in which I said:

    (Maureen said “values” but I think “rhetoric” is nearer the mark)

    But if you read my actual bit of mockery, you realize that whatever ways in which Maureen may have been wrong are irrelevant.

    You are calling someone out for reading comprehension difficulty, and then contrasting her assertion that you have evidenced libertarian values with your assertion that you have not **identified yourself** as libertarian.

    The problem is that even if your assertion is true (and I have no trouble granting that, even though I’ve not read every word you’ve ever written on the internet and don’t intend to) **it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Maureen Brian’s statement.

    You come across as literally not knowing what evidence would or wouldn’t falsify Maureen Brian’s statement. While saying that she has a reading comprehension problem.

    I don’t need to defend Maureen Brian’s statement to say:

    Reading comprehesions, definitionally thy numeral EnlightenmentLiberal delenda est

    It’s just funny that you’re attacking someone’s reading comprehension with an example that does nothing to challenge the truth or falsity of that person’s statement.

    Had you made your later, revised statement about merely employing critiques (in my formulation, rhetoric or language) common to libertarians in the first place, I would have been on your side against Maureen Brian. But you failed to raise Maureen Brian’s failings while exposing problems of your own.

    Frankly, this is exactly the kind of thing that I would mock if we were best friends. It’s fucking funny to misread someone (or get confused in what you wanted to say in response, either one) while accusing them of misreading.

    It’s human. It comes with being fallible. But it’s fucking funny.

    Fun: maybe you should try it sometime. Maybe a little?

  324. Grewgills says

    @EL #314

    Do I need to link to the particular part of the U.S.C. again which makes it known that willful failure to file an income tax report can be punished with up to 1 year of incarceration? The threat has been publicly made.

    What matters is what is actually done in the real world to real people. Wage earners (people payed by another person or business) are under no real threat of imprisonment for failure to pay taxes.

    Does the government regularly follow through on this threat? Is the threat credible? Yes.

    No and no if we are talking about wage earners, you know, most of the people with a tax liability. That fucking matters. Why don’t you get that that matters?

    Again, the fact that almost every person submits to the authority of the IRS after being caught cheating on their taxes has no bearing to the true threat that the government makes against continued willful non-compliance. Kent Hovind is anecdotal evidence of that. Several of the sovereign citizen tax advisors sitting in prison is evidence of that.

    And as you seem to be willfully ignoring at this point, both fall under the relatively narrow exceptions to the rule I spelled out above. Both make enough money to attract IRS attention, run their own businesses (so garnishment is not an option), and both obnoxiously challenge the government to do something about it. What about this are you failing to get?

  325. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    ah, fuck, I hate borking a blockquote.

  326. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Grewgills, #306:

    I didn’t say EL did. I said that EL said something that didn’t contradict Maureen Brian’s claim while EL’s writing made it seem as if EL thought EL was contradicting Maureen Brian’s claim…all while accusing Maureen Brian of reading comprehension difficulties.

    But, to plagiarize myself almost by definition, that is

    the pot calling the kettle, “Hey, you fucking pot!”

  327. says

    EL

    Permit me to offer you a slow clap.
    Allow me to explain this clap’s existence to you.
    Your initial premise was little more than a slogan, ‘Government is violence.’

    Getting what you meant, through the awful grammar, I and a couple of other people, defended this premise as being either true or at least containing the germ of an interesting discussion.

    After, what, two days of kicking this slogan around, we finally expanded it, without any help from yourself, into something like usefulness:
    • Violence, in at least some of its forms, is the deliberate use of force to do harm.
    • The enforcement of laws (not the laws themselves) involves some use of force to do some amount of harm.
    • Governments enforce laws.
    • Therefore no matter how needful we feel that violence to be, Governments are, in some small part, users of violence.

    Now, not everybody fell into agreement, but in your complete fucking absence, without any help from you, for a couple of hours, we managed to generate from what you seemed to mean and I certainly did mean, something which could have been a quite useful discussion. Not an argument. A discussion.

    You come back onto the thread, to enter the discussion which had been generated by your own fucking premise, and what do you do?

    You defend the very same slogan-rhetoric, ‘A thing (government) is violence,’ which makes no bloody sense. A thing cannot bloody well be violence, you complete and utter fuckwit. Violence is an act. Kidnapping, EL, you dopey fucker, cannot be violence. It can be violent. And that is the best part of your contribution since returning. Or, properly speaking, the least bad part. You’ve turned it into a discussion of whether rape may not be violence (wtf?). You’ve reiterated that long term incarceration is on a par with rape, which is apparently just a step up the scale of badness of violence from a punch in the face. Again, wtf? In my ‘abuse’ post, did you really read ‘thrown headfirst at a wall’ and think ‘Oh, that’s just a little worse than a black eye?’

    So again, I offer a slow clap. You came back to a thread-full of people who were actually discussing the very premise you tried and failed to express clearly for two fucking days, and you derailed it. You, in effect, trolled your own bloody post.

    Bravo. That’s quite a bleedin’ accomplishment.

  328. says

    Daz @327:

    • Violence, in at least some of its forms, is the deliberate use of force to do harm.
    • The enforcement of laws (not the laws themselves) involves some use of force to do some amount of harm.
    • Governments enforce laws.
    • Therefore no matter how needful we feel that violence to be, Governments are, in some small part, users of violence.

    If, at the onset of this discussion, EL said something akin to the above, I suspect much facepalming might have been avoided.

  329. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Tony #328

    About EL

    • Therefore no matter how needful we feel that violence to be, Governments are, in some small part, users of violence.

    If, at the onset of this discussion, EL said something akin to the above, I suspect much facepalming might have been avoided.

    I agree, but it wouldn’t have fit with EL’s problem of getting us to accept Xem as an authority. At this point, that concept that xey are an authority is is not only out the window, but injected into a deep well never to be seen again for millennia.

  332. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony!

    I thought EL rejected the World Health Organization as ridiculous and irrelevant.

    Quoting me from earlier:

    No, I said that further reading from the WHO website is irrelevant for this conversation in the context where we’ve already agreed to IMHO a sufficiently rigorous definition of violence [EL: the W.H.O. definition].

    Further, I find your argument here to be ridiculous.

    In order to properly refute your shenanigans, I wasted / spend several hours of my time, and I was pleasantly surprised by the results.

    http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf

    I will first note that this seems to have an agenda of having minimal reference to routine state violence of many contemporary oppressive tyrannies around the world. There’s barely any mention of it. This is no surprise. The W.H.O. probably wants to be seen a neutral party in order to have the support of all the contemporary nations of the world.

    Still, there are a few relevant bits to this discussion, beyond the mere formal definition of “violence” already given.

    The model assists in examining factors that influence behaviour – or which increase the risk of committing or being a victim of violence – by dividing them into four levels.
    […]
    The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create a climate in which
    violence is encouraged or inhibited. These include […] social and cultural norms. Such norms include […] those that support the use of excessive force by police against citizens […]

    Sorry for all of the snipping, but it’s a long quote to get the necessary context for those who have not read the document.

    So, cultural norms that support the use of excessive force by police against citizens increase the risk of violence. What kind of violence? Presumably the violence which is the use of excessive force by police against citizens.

    “Excessive” in this context is just codespeak for “unjustified” or “illegitimate”.
    I’ve read the document twice to see if I missed anything (please correct me if I did), but this is one of the only two spots in the document which makes the assertion, implied or explicit, that the determination of whether something is violence depends on whether it’s unjustified or illegitimate. (The other spot also refers to routine police enforcement – I include that quote further below and also comment on it.)

    The W.H.O. is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It never mentions “being justified” as a reason why something is not violence anywhere else in the doc, except in the matter of routine police enforcement. I would wager that they specifically went out of their way to not include “unjustified”, nor “illegitimate”, etc., in their formal definition of “violence”. How convenient that they implicitly invoke “unjustified” as an additional criteria, but only twice, and only for routine police enforcement. IMHO intellectually dishonest.

    Youth violence (involving people between the ages of 10 and 29 years) includes a range of aggressive acts from bullying and physical fighting, to more serious forms of assault and homicide.

    A case can be made that “bullying” is included here because it’s not part of “physical fighting”, which implies “bullying” includes non-physical violence. Just noting that for Tony and others. I admit it’s a rather weak case.

    Like child abuse, abuse of the elderly includes physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as neglect. Elderly people are especially vulnerable to economic abuse, in which relatives or other caregivers make improper use of their funds and resources

    From context, it is clear that the document is using “abuse” and “violence” interchangeably in this quote. Thus, the W.H.O. document says that mere neglect is a form of violence! Deprivation. See a connection to incarceration? Booya!

    But in cultures where women have inferior social status, elderly women are at special risk – for instance, of being abandoned when they are widowed and having their property seized (123, 124)

    Another example of non-physical violence: abandoned. Although I suppose that abandoned and neglect are pretty similar. Much more useful for my purposes is that the quote also identifies the taking of private property in at least one circumstance as a form of violence, and it’s not in the context of explicit torture, starvation, etc. It’s just the taking of “unnecessary” property. See a connection to taxes? Booya!

    While many countries have made progress in harmonizing legislation with their international
    obligations and commitments, others have not. Where the obstacle is the scarcity of resources or information, the international community should do more to assist. In other cases, strong campaigning will be necessary to bring about changes in legislation and practice.

    The reference to “strong campaigning” is IMHO a pretty clear and thinly veiled reference that some states partake in violence on their citizens, and they should change their laws and police behavior. This again supports the notion that some forms of police enforcement are violence, which again brings us back to the intellectual contradiction of saying that “justification” is not part of the determination of whether something is violence – except for routine police enforcement where justified police enforcement cannot be violence but unjustified police enforcement can be violence.

    …

    I always find it deliciously ironic when someone gives a citation which they purport supports their position, but which exactly does the opposite.

    PS:
    More quotes from the document:

    The global drugs trade […] To date, however – and despite their high profile in the world arena – no solutions seem to be in sight for these problems.

    What? Legalize many of those drugs. Divert funding to prevention and rehab centers. Problem solved. Problem solved. Ok – not “solved”, but at least made drastically better.

    Violence is not inevitable.

    Sadly wrong and naive.

    …

    Of course, originally this all started in the context where I didn’t make a fuss, and just offhand remarked that government is funded by violence, and so all other things being equal, we should tax less, while also emphasizing that this means we should have lots of taxes to fund government programs for the common good. In the immediate next post, I even emphasize that I want huge wealth redistribution, and I layed out several clearly Marxist values, such as assertign that all private property cannot exist in the real world without violence as enforcement. That was the entirety of my original point which sparked this discussion – go see here and here.

  333. consciousness razor says

    Being charitable (though gawd knows why I should be) to EL, I think they kinda assumed everyone would understand that something along those lines is what they meant.

    I also think concentrating on the enforcement of laws other than tax-related would have simplified things somewhat.

    I don’t see how you could conclude that. Being charitable wouldn’t get you there.

    Destruction of property = violence
    Taking property away = violence
    Injuring a person = violence
    Take a person away = violence
    Threatening to do any of the above = violence

    That’s the sort of thing EL very clearly says he actually thinks.

    It’s not about whether injuring a person (what everybody should consider an unambiguously correct usage of the word “violence”) happens routinely in the course of governments enforcing their laws. That truly is something actually happens, and is not even remotely controversial. If you’re being charitable to people like me who are criticizing him, that is something you need to take on board. We’re not so fucking obtuse that we wouldn’t be able to understand it when someone meant something that fucking obvious.

    His bullshit was actually about whether destroying a thing is the same as taking it from a person, whether actually doing a thing is the same as talking about doing it, whether a person is equivalent to a piece of property, and so forth. In other words, failing to make such distinctions is exactly what EL has been on about this entire fucking time, according to him, repeatedly.

    That’s also what is so fucking repulsive and ridiculous about it. That whole slew of confused crap is used in the service of justifying some bullshit libertarian (aka classical/enlightenment liberal) slogan which claims “government is violence” in the way you tried to interpret it, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

  334. Acolyte of Sagan says

    EL, several times now you have employed the acronym IMHO. Please stop doing so; it has the effect of making you sound dishonest when your opinions are actually stated.

    So far you have come across as arrogant, smug, self-opinionated, self-aggrandising, patronising, self-important, and condescending, to name just a few of your better qualities.

    You seem entirely unable to accept that you may be wrong about anything and consequently are either unable or unwilling to concede a point – however minor – to an opponent, and furthermore give the impression that your way of thinking is the only way – or at least the only correct way – of thinking, and likewise that your definitions are the only acceptable definitions.

    So where’s the fucking humility? Up until now your ‘O’ has been a lot of things, but those things have been a country light year from being ‘H’.

  335. says

    EL @332:

    Further, I find your argument here to be ridiculous.

    That’s nice.
    The point I was making in that comment is that while it is unclear how the authors of the WHO report define deprivation, there is nothing in the report to support the contention that incarceration is a type of violence. Again, in addressing the types of violence going on in the world (with the stated goal of reducing violence around the globe) the report makes no mention of incarceration.

  336. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal sez @332:

    Of course, originally this all started in the context where I didn’t make a fuss, and just offhand remarked that government is funded by violence, and so all other things being equal, we should tax less, while also emphasizing that this means we should have lots of taxes to fund government programs for the common good.

    Here’s a link to that “offhand remark” :

    Well, government is almost by definition violence (necessarily relies on taxes), and I generally dislike violence. Thus, I think that “small government” should be a goal, but not at the cost of other goals. We should avoid obviously wasteful program implementations when better implementations exist. We should avoid pork barrel programs that are not for the common good – e.g. don’t tax everyone just to give it to the already rich.
    Of course, the Republicans are willing to sacrifice other goals on their altar of small government, and that is bad.

    Which is it?
    Government is almost by definition violence
    or
    Government is funded by violence.

  337. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    Okay, I’m not playing word games here, I’m simply asking. You say in your most recent comment (at least at this moment) #332:

    Of course, originally this all started in the context where I didn’t make a fuss, and just offhand remarked that government is funded by violence, and so all other things being equal, we should tax less,

    Okay, this may be what you said in those early posts, but you have ALSO said that you don’t want a non-violent world, that violence can be necessary and justified and possibly even, in some circumstances, good.

    Now BLUE things can be horrible things, but presumably there can also be some blue things that are necessary and justified and possibly even, in some circumstances, good.

    So saying something is BLUE is not an argument for having less of it.

    In the same vein: if identifying something as violence **does not** identify it as un-good, unjustified, and unnecessary,

    …how is identifying something as violence an argument to reduce it? Why would you reduce necessary things? Why would you reduce good things?

    While I disagree with you on certain questions of what constitutes violence, I want a reduction in violence. I want a reduction in all things that qualify as violence for me, because even those things I would consider “justified” are so only if and to the extent that they produce a **net reduction** in harm and other violence, or in the rare case where there is no change in net violence or harm, but a person was in the position of defending against violent aggression. Equally violent defense against violent aggression can be justified. **But I would still want it reduced.** It isn’t “necessary” because it isn’t “necessary” to have a world with anywhere near our levels of violent aggression.

    So the rhetoric “let’s reduce it, because it’s violence” works with me and with many, I suspect, of your readers.

    But it makes no sense in your own I am Groot! philosophy.

    In your philosophy, where you’re defining taxes as violence, taxes are necessary to, among other things, preserve habitat for endangered species and fund research into nutrition. You are not interested in reducing these things (well, maybe you are, these are my hypotheticals, but you have lots of your own worthwhile things in mind for tax monies) – you’re very explicit about wanting a very significant amount of money around to fund an effective government.

    You cannot argue on the basis of “violence == bad” if you yourself reject the equation “violence == bad”.

    So since you are self-evidently NOT arguing

    government is funded by violence, and so all other things being equal, we should tax less,

    What **IS** your argument for taxing less?

  338. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Daz

    You defend the very same slogan-rhetoric, ‘A thing (government) is violence,’ which makes no bloody sense.

    No I didn’t – under the assumption we’re talking about the same post. Recently, I have been trying very hard to be pedantically correct on this issue. In the post I’m thinking about, I said:

    Again, my end goal is to argue that any just and good government over a large non-trivial population of real humans in the real world with our level of technology must involve enforcement which qualifies as violence.

    In that sentence, “violence” is directly attached to “enforcement”, not “government”.

    Unfortunately Daz, I’m quickly moving you closer to my mental category of “unreasonable people”.

    …

    @Grewgills

    What matters is what is actually done in the real world to real people. Wage earners (people payed by another person or business) are under no real threat of imprisonment for failure to pay taxes.

    Real average citizens (who are required to file income tax reports) are not “under threat” only because they submit to their abuser. If they stopped submitting, then undoubtedly they would be subject to incarceration (eventually).

    Are you going to hold a hypothetical abused spouses to this ridiculous standard, where if the abuser can say “I’m not being violent anymore because I don’t hit her anymore because she has submitted to my authority” ?

    …

    @Xanthë
    Sorry for not providing the synopsis earlier. I thought I was clear in my head, but apparently not.

    As for the road which you will not travel, I will travel it. First, I provided a (peer reviewed) paper earlier which makes a compelling case that in actual fact, almost no government has come about through a voluntary social contract of the people. Please see here:

    Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development
    Author(s): Mancur Olson
    Source:
    The American Political Science Review,
    Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 567-576
    Published by: American Political Science Association
    http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf

    So, it’s simply a fiction for nearly all of the governments today that they have come about through an actual voluntary social contract. Further, it would be entirely impossible to actually get consensus, voluntary agreement, for all citizens of any non-trivial country on any government. “The social contract” is a justification we would like to have but don’t actually have. At best, it describes a just society as one which we would all want to consent to, as you spell out.

    Further, new people are born in all the time, and there will always be cheats who won’t consent, and who will want to take advantage of their neighbor by free-riding. We cannot wait for their consent, and so we obtain their cooperation through violence.

    And as for my hero John Stuart Mill.

    Even Mill wasn’t silly enough to reflexively define taxation as violence.

    It’s been a while, but I don’t recall Mill giving a specific formal definition of “violence”. Did he? His formulation of the harm principle relied on the mere usual notion of force with intent. He used the the word “force”, and many other synonyms. He had no need to define “violence”.

    Recap: Unlike modern libertarian misconceptions, Mill’s Harm Principle merely forbids force intended to stop a group of consenting, informed, competent adults when their actions (or in-action) have no effect on the outside world – positive or negative. As soon as their actions (or in-action) has a tangible consequence on the well-being of other people, then the Harm Principle itself stops applies.

    Mill does lay out some ground rules for what happens when the Harm Principle does not apply. In particular, for negative harm, the usual notion of libertarian harm – any and all reasonable force to stop or prevent such harm on others is totally justified. But for positive benefits from compelled duties – Mill notes that the standard to use force to compel action for the betterment of others requires a higher standard.

    Here Mill lists out some such examples:
    John Stuart Mill
    On Liberty

    There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature’s life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against illusage, things which whenever it is obviously a man’s duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing.

    Mill gives examples of “providing” for the common defense, which might mean taxes, or even the draft! Mill includes even far lesser duties in his list of things which are harms under the Harm Principle, but for which we can compel persons to do so for the betterment of others. Such lesser duties include being forced to appear in court to give testimony – very similar to my favorite example of jury duty.

    So, under this framework, tax enforcement totally count as a harmful force, but the Harm Principle does not forbid the application this harmful force because it is for the betterment of others, and it exceeds some unspecified minimum threshold for compelling duties for positive effects on others.

    Whether it counts as “violence” or not? Again, I doubt Mill bothers to make a distinction and keep true to that distinction in his work.

  341. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @enlightenmentLiberal

    This again supports the notion that some forms of police enforcement are violence, which again brings us back to the intellectual contradiction of saying that “justification” is not part of the determination of whether something is violence – except for routine police enforcement where justified police enforcement cannot be violence but unjustified police enforcement can be violence.

    No.

    It might be a contradiction (intellectual or otherwise) if WHO had written an intent-neutral definition. But it didn’t. They care very much about intention in their definition. Some policing by violent thugs might involve “intent to cause injury … or deprivation”*1 and other policing might involve cops with no intent to injure/deprive*1, but with an intent to serve warrants, conduct searches, and even take people into custody without injury or deprivation*1 as necessary to conduct lawful arrests, detentions, or incarcerations.

    Since abuse under color of authority is a thing, and since WHO is a political organization amongst whatever other qualities it may possess, “legitimate” is an easy short hand. The law, after all, doesn’t actually provide for the cops to use violence with intent to injure. It allows them to injure in the course of their duties if they do so through taking actions intended to enforce the law.

    *1 …using the WHO definitions of injury and deprivation, whatever they are, but given that it’s a HEALTH organization is probably not inclusive of, “did not permit a person to go wandering about the city, but rather closed and locked the cell door” as this is not on its own a **health** issue, even if it is privation of certain political freedoms

  342. consciousness razor says

    Unfortunately Daz, I’m quickly moving you closer to my mental category of “unreasonable people”.

    Congrats, Daz.

    Real average citizens (who are required to file income tax reports) are not “under threat” only because they submit to their abuser.

    Riiiiiight…. “they submit to their abuser.” Actual survivors of actual abuse should not have a problem with that language at all. And you’re totally not a crypto-libertarian who hates big gubmint/taxes/facts/etc. No, you’re obviously some whacky kind of liberal who thinks this “abuse” we submit to is a good thing. You merely say exactly the same shit they do, because you think it’s right. And it’s not right. And you’re a special snowflake who gets to say contradictory nonsense. And we’re all okay with that. Of course we are. Does that make you feel better?

  343. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @daz:

    with a sewing kit and a razor?

    I think I’d find it more useful if it had a razing kit and a sewer.

  345. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Can we have a serious moment:

    You have said that taxes are violence, yes, but you have also defended them as good and necessary.

    As far as I can tell, you don’t **like** that taxes are violence, and you wish that there was another way, but you do want people to pay taxes. You would prefer (I think) that no one ever face violence through taxation enforcement, but you do want taxes – taxes sufficient to fund a government.

    To that extent, you **actually want** people to participate in a tax scheme where they can do so voluntarily. A system that makes people want to submit their taxes is your preferred outcome.

    Can you see how, when you spend so much time on that, certain people might take your domestic violence example badly? How in hell do you compare a system to which you want people to submit to a systematic pattern of interpersonal interaction where submission would be a diabolical result?

    If the two were, in fact, compared, wouldn’t you be cheering voluntary submission? If not, why not?

    This is the incredibly awful place to which you lead your readers when you say that taxes are violence, but you want taxes, just like domestic violence. Which you don’t want.

    “all other things being equal, I’d like a bit less domestic violence” is a statement you can reasonably make about taxes. It is a repugnant statement to make about domestic violence.

    If other people were saying, “taxes are violence, but I really do want them” it would be a bit dangerous to go there.

    When YOU are the person saying, “taxes are violence, but I really do want them,” equating taxes and domestic violence merely turns the stomachs of your readers.

    These are the practical consequences of defining taxes as violence. I hope you get it.

  346. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony

    Which is it?
    Government is almost by definition violence
    or
    Government is funded by violence.

    It’s the second. I would clarify my position further: Any government over a large non-trivial population of real human being in the real world needs involuntary funding, which is called taxes, and the enforcement of tax collection for any such real government will necessarily include some violence in the enforcement.

    …

    @Crip Dyke in 337
    I went looking for earlier posts where I thought I already made the following points. To my immense surprise, I did not! Wow. I really could have and should have done better on this point. I guess I just took it for granted, but given how the conversation developed, I really should not have taken it for granted. My sincere apologies, in that I could have and should have been much clearer on the following points much earlier in the conversation.

    So the rhetoric “let’s reduce it, because it’s violence” works with me and with many, I suspect, of your readers.

    But it makes no sense in your own I am Groot! philosophy.

    Of course I agree that reducing violence is a very laudable goal. It’s one of the most important goals. Depending on some very arcane details of the definition of violence, however, I don’t hold “reduction of violence” as the only goal.

    In your philosophy, where you’re defining taxes as violence, taxes are necessary to, among other things, preserve habitat for endangered species and fund research into nutrition. You are not interested in reducing these things (well, maybe you are, these are my hypotheticals, but you have lots of your own worthwhile things in mind for tax monies) – you’re very explicit about wanting a very significant amount of money around to fund an effective government.

    Reducing how? Do you mean arguing how all of your example policies are a net reduction of violence? At first glance, I’m not sure if it’s true, but it seems maybe doable to make that argument.

    I admit that reduction of violence is not my highest priority. My highest priority is to make the world a better place, to improve the human condition, to improve human well-being, to provide for the safety, self determination, and material wealth of people. I generally judge these standards according to the veil of ignorance of Rawls.

    I think some simple examples are in order, contrived and unrealistic as it is at first glance: I would rather be punched in the face once per year (assuming no broken bones, concussions, or other serious damage, but perhaps lots of pain), than be imprisoned for a year. I would rather be punched in the face once per year than go without my friends and family. I would rather be punched in the face once per year than go without the internet and many modern conveniences. I assume that most human beings on this planet share these preferences, and I believe that these preferences reflect a truth about improving the human condition.

    Now, replace “punching” with “taxes”, and that’s more or less my position.

    I think that being free from violence is an incredibly important aspect of human well-being, but it’s not the end-all-be-all trump-everything card which you may(?) treat it as.

  347. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Now now, we never raze kits.

    no, no. I want to **have** a razing kit.

    But now that you point it out, that’s redundant.

  348. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Reducing how? Do you mean arguing how all of your example policies are a net reduction of violence? At first glance, I’m not sure if it’s true,

    No. I mean that eliminating these programs reduces violence because it reduces taxation, …and taxation is violence.

    Thus saying you want these programs is saying you want a certain amount of violence.

    Of course I agree that reducing violence is a very laudable goal.

    Okay, but taxation == violence. But taxation is necessary and good. You want taxation. So violence == Yay!

    Why would you reduce “Yay!”?

    You can’t want to reduce all violence by definition.

    In other words, you can’t say, “since it’s violence, I know I want to get rid of it,”

    if you are also saying some violence is necessary and justifiable and good.

    What is the crucial piece that makes you decide to get rid of it if “it is violence” is insufficient to make that decision?

  349. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I think that being free from violence is an incredibly important aspect of human well-being, but it’s not the end-all-be-all trump-everything card which you may(?) treat it as.

    Everything that I define as violence is something that I would eliminate if I could wave a magic wand and make the world better thereby.

    However, in the real world where the Elder wand was hidden in a forest by the infinitely selfish Harry Potter, I might finding spending a dollar on increasing food availability to be more pressing than spending a dollar on certain anti-violence programs.

    Am I using violence as a trump card in the sense you intend? I can’t tell.

  351. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Thanks, Tony!

    I really appreciate your research.

  352. anteprepro says

    Here, I have a proposition: Every person here is An Unreasonable Person except Enlightenment Liberal.

    Who wants to cosign? With the dim hope that will finally make EL stop their fucking pompous and inane gibbering?

  353. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I would, except my definition of “unreasonable” is probably esoteric.

  354. says

    anteprepro @352:
    Co-signed!
    Although I’d point out that I don’t foresee an end to their “pompous and inane gibbering” so long as commenters respond to their comments and questions.

  355. anteprepro says

    Crip Dyke: Would definition happen to overlap with “violence”? I’m sure it must.

    Tony!: I imagine even not responding wouldn’t stop them. But my imagination is a terrible, terrible place.

  356. jste says

    But my imagination is a terrible, terrible place.

    In my imagination, violence sometimes happens. So by definition my imagination is violence, so by definition I’m violence, but I have a definition of definition, so definitions are by definition violence!

    Ok, I think this thread broke me.

  358. consciousness razor says

    I am violently esoteric and literally unreasonable, by definition, a priori, necessarily and not necessarily, based on my experience, possibly. If everyone doesn’t agree or can’t even comprehend that, as I don’t, then I have nothing to say to anyone, including what I already said, obviously.

  360. Grewgills says

    @EL #338

    Real average citizens (who are required to file income tax reports) are not “under threat” only because they submit to their abuser. If they stopped submitting, then undoubtedly they would be subject to incarceration (eventually).

    JesusfuckingHChrist, did you read what I wrote? No, that is not the case. If a “real average citizen”* does not submit their taxes they will not be subject to incarceration. The IRS will assess a fine and the principle plus the fine will be incrementally deducted from their pay checks and sent to the IRS. There is absofuckinglutely no violence in that interaction. There is not threat of incarceration in that interaction for Mr or Ms “real average citizen”. After so many iterations I can only conclude you are being willfully obtuse on this.

    And now you have sunk further down the rabbit hole claiming that taxes are “abuse” as well as “violence”. The accepted definitions of abuse are:

    1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
    2. treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

    To claim that either of those definitions are accurate in reference to taxes is libertarian land level of inanity.

    *Average citizens of the US work for an employer that pays them.

  361. says

    jste @356:
    In addition to violence, you’re also taxes. Not sure how that works.
    In addition, at one point you were, almost by definition, government (back when EL made the initial claim that government is, almost by definition, violence; they have since reworked and restated their initial assertion).

  362. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @jste/consciousness razor:

    If I’m giggling uncontrollably, can I blame that on the wine now that I’ve had 1/3rd of a glass?

  364. consciousness razor says

    If I’m giggling uncontrollably, can I blame that on the wine now that I’ve had 1/3rd of a glass?

    Sure, you can, I guess, if you want to. But my unreasonable esotericism is so inevitably and intractably and necessarily violent (in the pathological edges cases when that really is true) that I should expect such things to be literally blamed on it instead, according to my quasi-definitions.

  365. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    oooooo, consciousness razor,

    you are **cruel**. I can’t stop laughing again.

    This behavior of yours, almost by definition, is brain surgery!

  367. jste says

    @jste/consciousness razor:
    If I’m giggling uncontrollably, can I blame that on the wine now that I’ve had 1/3rd of a glass?

    If a tiny fraction of you is wine, does that make you literally a bag of wine? And drunk people drink blame lots of violence on bags wine, so that means wine is by definition violence, and I’m not sure where I’m going with this, because I’ve run out of steam, but steam scalds people so steam is literally violence, so I’ve just used up all my violence. But wait. If I *am* violence, and I’ve used up all my violence, am I really real any more?

    I really have broken myself now. You people are a bad influence. o.O

  369. says

    480 million years ago, this giant lobster was the biggest animal on Earth

    About 480 million years ago, the seven foot-long Aegirocassis benmoulae swam about in the sea. The lobster-like sea creature used its flaps — swimming devices on its belly and back — and long segmented body to get around. And unlike many of its fellow its relatives, it ate plankton. This means that it had to swim with its appendages outstretched in front of its head, dragging a net-like “sieve” made of long downward-directed spines through the water.

    “It would have dwarfed anything else at the time, being twice as big as the next biggest animal — at the very least,” says Peter Van Roy, an archeologist at Yale University and a co-author of a Nature study published today that contributes entirely new information about Aegirocassis benmoulae. “They were absolutely massive.”

    A lot of what you’ve just read wasn’t known until recently. When the Aegirocassis benmoulae’s relatives — a group of marine animals called anomalocaridids — were first discovered, archeologists looked their spiny appendages and thought they represented the body of a shrimp. Some also believed that their toothed mouths were jellyfish, and their complete bodies were actually described as sea cucumbers.

    Then, in 1985, a group of researchers figured it out. The bits and pieces that people were associating with various other species actually belonged to a single group of early marine animals called anomalocardids — large sea creatures that are ancestors to all arthropods, a category of animals composed of everything from lobsters and crabs to scorpions and ants. “Nevertheless, the affinities of anomalocaridids remained enigmatic: it would take almost another decade before they were finally recognized as arthropods,” Van Roy says.

    In 2011, things started coming together. Before that, archeologists thought that Aegirocassis benmoulae was a predatory animal, much like the major of anomalocaridids that had come before it. But the man who found the Aegirocassis benmoulae fossils — a local collector in Morocco by the name of Mohamed Ben Moula who doesn’t have archeological training — changed all that. “With a big smile, he walks over to me and says, ‘you know, I have something to show you,’” Van Roy says. Ben Moula showed him a beautifully preserved appendage with “very delicate filter-feeding morphology; it had all these fine spines,” Van Roy says. “It was shocking.”

    To show their gratitude, Van Roy and his team named Aegirocassis benmoulae after the Morrocan collector.

    In the time of the Aegirocassis benmoulae, during the the Ordovician period, plankton ecosystems were changing and many new species of plankton were popping up. This likely spurred the emergence of this large plankton-eating anomalocaridid. And going from predation to plankton-filtering is part of a larger evolutionary theme, Van Roy says. “Exactly the same thing happened much, much later in sharks and whales,” he says. “They started out as predators, and because of a major plankton diversification suddenly you get extremely big filter-feeding animals, like whale sharks and blue whales.” Researchers also think Crocodiles went through a similar period in which a large plankton-eating species of crocs emerged. “They reached massive sizes,” he says. “And our animal is the oldest example of this.”

  370. jste says

    jste @367:
    I must politely request that you stop making such humorous comments. They cause me to giggle…violently.

    I would apologise for causing such violence, but that would harm my ego, and thus apologies are by definition violence! I might leave off with the violence though, because I am needed elsewhere! People have not yet had a chance to shout at me for cheating at boardgames this week! (whilst I maintain reading the rules is not cheating and object to such violent treatment of my techniques.)

  371. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @jste:

    But wait. If I *am* violence, and I’ve used up all my violence, am I really real any more?

    cogito ergo violence

    ================

    You people are a bad influence.

    Okay, survey time:

    I’m a bad man

    Did you hear that in the voice of:
    1. Ali
    2. Fillion
    3. Someone else?

  372. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Tony!

    that is an awesome fossil and a very cool beastie.

    Also, when I read the name, I immediately thought “Shield-somethingrocassis Found or identified but probably found by someone named Ben Moula”?

    Also, I thought, “Arthropod!” [though you had already pointed me in that direction, I maintain the “Aegi” was what did it – hard carapaces often being described as shields]

    Further, I thought “anomalocarid”. Right again.

    I’m good at this stuff.

    And yet, I did not predict “plankton eater” before I read it. Bad ass, sir. Well done. A good article for the ‘Dome.

  374. jste says

    cogito ergo violence

    I like that! I may have to amend my nym, for a while at least.

    Did you hear that in the voice of:
    1. Ali
    2. Fillion
    3. Someone else?

    3. Me initially. But now that I’ve read the possible answers, I’m stuck with Fillion.

  376. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Grewgills
    This is going nowhere. You are wrong, and you have written nothing that has changed my mind, and you are unlikely to write anything else that will change my mind. Apparently the same is true for you of me.

    …

    @Crip Dyke

    In other words, you can’t say, “since it’s violence, I know I want to get rid of it,”

    Everything that I define as violence is something that I would eliminate if I could wave a magic wand and make the world better thereby.

    We simply have different understanding of what the word “violence” means and should mean. It sounds like a great thing to try and get rid of everything which you label violent. I definitely plan to help move society in the same direction.

    I just have a slightly different understanding of the word. We probably have the same policy goals, and probably similar reasoning, but we use different words to describe it. We really should be largely agreeing rather than seeming mortal enemies (exaggeration).

    I still happen to think that my understanding of the word is internally consistent, not ad-hoc, and maps fairly well to common usage, whereas I don’t understand your meaning of the word better than “threats of force and actual force which I find to be bad” – it’s ad-hoc. Tony’s new research changes nothing there. It just shows that the W.H.O. uses the word inconsistency as well – bullying is violence, neglect is violence, even the taking of property can be violence, but oh no the taking of property called taxes isn’t violence and incarceration of tax evaders isn’t violence (snark).

    I still have the value of trying to lessen violence as much as I can, but I also have other values. Being free from violence is just one dimension or aspect to human well-being. To be sure, it’s a very, very important dimension, but it’s not the only one of many.

    It’s also true that with the materials I have been given, the rules of physics, this planet, human nature, and the current technological level, I cannot rid this world of violence. Without taxes, there is no government, which means anarchy, which means lots of violence. I have decided that taxes represent far less violence than anarchy. Still, I would love to lessen violence as much as possible / reasonable. (Specifically: I would love to improve human well-being as much as I can.)

    It could have been otherwise. Our world could have been like the afterlife in the movie What Dreams May Come, where physical violence is impossible, where material can literally be wished into existence, where land space is endless and free. Taxes are no longer needed. If I could, I would wave that magic wand to make our world more like the afterlife of What Dreams May Come, but that is not within my power, nor the collective power of everyone on the planet. It saddens me that I do not have that magic wand.

    It does us no good to pretend that we have that magic wand, and it does us no good to use an unreasonable ad-hoc definition of any word, let alone something so important as the word “violence”. On the primacy of human well-being I will stand, and I consider it an almost forgone conclusion that the best way to accomplish that goal is truth, honesty, clarity – not the ad-hoc doublespeak language that you offer. – Yes, I know that you will see that as a rich irony coming from me, hypocrisy perhaps, but you know I have completely different view of how this conversation has gone.

  377. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    but it’s not the only one of many.

    Err, typo during refactoring. That should read “it [being free from violence] is just one dimension of many to human well-being”.

  378. chigau (違う) says

    EnlightenmentLiberal
    Do you have your own website?
    Shouldn’t you have your own website?

  379. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Crip Dyke

    The law, after all, doesn’t actually provide for the cops to use violence with intent to injure.

    Yes the law does. It very clearly does. Justifiable self defense. It’s not even restricted to cops. Or is shooting someone not violence if it’s justified self defense? I don’t recall if you took a stand yet on physical self defense and whether it counts as violence.

    and even take people into custody without injury or deprivation*1 as necessary to conduct lawful arrests, detentions, or incarcerations.

    The police offers have the intent to put them in prison. They know what prison is. At the very least, it is harmful, and so the police officers have the intent to do harm.

    Again, the W.H.O. says that bullying is violence, mere neglect is violence, the taking of property from a wife when the husband dies is violence. Do you agree with these things? Presumably yes. And yet you’re going to sit here and say that the taking of property called taxes is not violence, and incarceration for tax fraud is not violence? That’s some pretty brazen intellectual dishonesty – or your definition of violence is nothing more than “threats of force or actual force which I don’t like”, alternatively: “threats of force or actual force which are contrary to human well-being”.

    but rather closed and locked the cell door” as this is not on its own a **health** issue, even if it is privation of certain political freedoms

    Mental health – it’s a thing. There’s more to human well-being that the mere protection of the physical body.

    …

    @consciousness razor

    No, you’re obviously some whacky kind of liberal who thinks this “abuse” we submit to is a good thing.

    For others: in context, you meant taxes.

    The least evil option – we generally call that good and justified. Yes, I think requiring this abuse is a good thing. Generating a large majority of agreement with the imposition of abuse is another good thing, but there will always be hold-outs and free-riders. Afterwardm submitting to the abuse of taxes is simply the only rational choice.

    Actual survivors of actual abuse should not have a problem with that language at all.

    Not my problem. I’m not trying to be provocative. I could add trigger warnings if you want. Do you think I should? I simply am describing the situation with as neutral of terms that I can manage while still conveying my meaning.

    …

    Crip Dyke

    Can you see how, when you spend so much time on that, certain people might take your domestic violence example badly? How in hell do you compare a system to which you want people to submit to a systematic pattern of interpersonal interaction where submission would be a diabolical result?

    By rational argument?

    but you want taxes, just like domestic violence. Which you don’t want.

    Similar in some aspects. Quite dissimilar in others. Taxes provide roads, police, fire fighters, education, etc. Domestic spousal abuse does not.

    “all other things being equal, I’d like a bit less domestic violence” is a statement you can reasonably make about taxes. It is a repugnant statement to make about domestic violence.

    That’s because taxes and domestic violence are radically different kinds of violence, with radically different harms and damages to persons. Also because my original assertion was an example – not a rule. I didn’t literally mean that as my standard for raising or lowering taxes. It was an example in which I would want taxes to be lowered. There are other scenarios where I would want taxes to be lowered.

    You took one thing I said, wrongly and dishonestly interpreted it as a ironclad rule instead of an example, and then made a fallacious argument by analogy, and implied that argument to me when I never made it. Stay classy.

    When YOU are the person saying, “taxes are violence, but I really do want them,” equating taxes and domestic violence merely turns the stomachs of your readers.

    I didn’t equate taxes and domestic violence as equally bad. I was responding to another person’s application of the word “violence”, and showing how their application of the word “violence” to taxes when instead applied to “domestic spousal violence” led to absurdities. You know – doing a reductio ad absurdum to show that the form of the argument is bullshit and/or a premise of the argument is bullshit. At no point did I equate or compare the two to form the reductio, except to say that they exist somewhere on the same measuring stick that is violence – very far apart to be sure. I just included them in the same paragraph. That’s it. This equating incidence is entirely in your head, and I reject the insinuation, and I object to yet another demonstrably false character assassination.

    …

    PS: It seems most people don’t want me to engage anymore. I think we’re getting close to done anyway on this topic. I’m skipping the remainder of the posts above this. I’ll try to respond only to new direct questions on this topic now.

  380. consciousness razor says

    On the primacy of human well-being I will stand, and I consider it an almost forgone conclusion that the best way to accomplish that goal is truth, honesty, clarity – not the ad-hoc doublespeak language that you offer.

    Look, fuckwit, if I stole something of yours, it would not be accurate to say I had broken it. That would be false. One is stealing your property, while the other is damaging it. If I threaten to steal something of yours or threaten to break it, that also does not mean that I have either stolen or broken it. Such threats could make you upset, but that is nevertheless a different physical state of the world than one in which I now have your stolen thing or it is broken somewhere. Furthermore, a human being is not property; we are sentient agents with rights and so forth that we want to guarantee, which do not look or act or feel or think or care like property, so nearly anything we say about people (as opposed to property or any other inanimate object) will require different sets of terminology for that reason alone.

    There is nothing ad hoc about any of this (that’s you engaging in projection again). That is the state of the world that we should attempt to describe correctly somehow, without introducing confusion. Such terms are describing factually different situations in the real world, so it is therefore completely unproblematic that we use different terms for them, ones that at least roughly correspond to the ordinary uses of the words that people already do understand. It makes things more clear, makes our descriptions more truthful and honest, and it doesn’t import any major theoretical biases like yours right from the beginning (which, in your case, we’ve already shown are overloaded with basic conceptual problems besides this).

    It is not to done in order to argue that one thing or another is therefore (on that basis) legal, good, should be minimized, is the only or primary thing we should worry about, or whatever the fuck you think you’re blathering about. It will need to be there as soon as we try to use ordinary language simply to accurately describe what the fuck we’re talking about, before we finally get around (if we ever do) to talking about what things are legal, moral, more or less important to us, etc.

    And the fact is, dumbass, stealing your toy doesn’t fucking break it. And your toy isn’t fucking alive. Deal with it.

  381. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Correction:

    Similar in some aspects. Quite dissimilar in others. Taxes provide roads, police, fire fighters, education, etc. Domestic spousal abuse does not.

    I’m sure someone’s going to complain about this, so I’ll cut them off. At no point did I state or insinuate that spousal abuse is anywhere near as horrific as taxes. Of course that is another dissimilarity. Of course I would never dream of doing spousal abuse to anyone, even if it gave us roads, police, etc. It’s simply too harmful and evil. The veil of ignorance standard of Rawls compels this outcome.

  382. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh god damn it. That still sounds bad. Again, I’m sorry. Of course spousal abuse is way, way worse, more evil, more harmful, more violent, etc., than taxes.

  383. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    whereas I don’t understand your meaning of the word better than “threats of force and actual force which I find to be bad” – it’s ad-hoc.
    …
    I consider it an almost forgone conclusion that the best way to accomplish that goal is truth, honesty, clarity – not the ad-hoc doublespeak language that you offer

    Note: your lack of understanding is not an argument. Attempting to use it as persuasive is a fallacy. If you don’t understand it, then you literally can’t support the conclusion that it’s ad hoc. You can’t support any conclusion other than conclusions about your lack of understanding. How are you supposed to get anyone to take your argument seriously when you nakedly claim, “I don’t understand X, therefore X must be Y.” How the fuck would you know if it’s Y if you don’t understand it?

    There’s no shame in not knowing something. Moreover, I have no responsibility to you to reveal my definitions. As I said before ***and for which you’ve shown no intent to apologize and about which you’ve shown no awareness*** the way you keep saying that your lack of understanding is a problem for me comes across as a creepy (very creepy) form of entitlement. Telling me that you don’t understand X, and that if I wish to productively engage Y which can only be reached by moving the discussion beyond X, you’re giving me information. Repeatedly insisting that you don’t understand X and that says bad things about me comes across as you bashing me for your ignorance in an attempt to get information which – for most of that time – I said I was withholding unless and until you provided sufficient definitions to allow us to check your work.

    That’s a legitimate position to take. I don’t have to engage with you. You really lose good will with me every time you attempt to use your lack of understanding as an excuse say or imply deficiency on my part.

    To put it bluntly: it’s okay for me not to give a shit if you understand my definition. Why do you act as if this isn’t okay? Why did you act as if this was some deficiency on my part throughout the time period after I said I would no longer engage with you until you provide sufficient definitional support to allow us to check your work and before you decided the WHO was your authority? Do you really not understand that I have no responsibility to educate you or reveal my thoughts to you? If you do understand that, do you really think you’re putting that belief into practice in ThunderDome? If not, why the hell not?

    Moving on:
    Look, I clearly provided criteria that I use in my decision making that were not merely “I follow the definition provided by dictionary (or organization) X.”

    By “ad-hoc,” what do you mean?

    typically ad hoc means, “for the thing” meaning, “for one particular thing” and idiomatically, “concocted for a particular purpose and not useful outside of that purpose”. In some circumstances the idiom can also imply dishonesty, e.g. when the “hoc” is the avoidance of a negative consequence.

    Saying that I created a definition of violence “ad hoc” means very little unless we know which “hoc”. If I created it for the specific purpose of
    1 communicating to others on this thread
    2 what I mean by “violence”
    3 in a way that puts some things in and leaves some things out on the basis of my assessment of the already-shared understandings that
    4. the participants in this thread are actually likely to have.

    then you’ve got me. I’ve created an ad hoc definition: I’m trying to communicate what I mean by violence. And yet it doesn’t really deserve the negative connotations of “ad hoc”, since trying to communicate what I mean by violence is a perfectly noble goal in the context of this thread.

    Is there some other “hoc” for which you believe I crafted my #65 of page 2 on the previous TD?

    If there is another “hoc”, what is that hoc? That “hoc” would have to be the purpose I had in mind, right? And why would you presume to know my thoughts so well when you quite obviously failed spectacularly when you asserted that I never had an intention to engage?

    Call my definition ad hoc if you like, I don’t believe that that is in anyway dishonest or problematic. Rather, I find it quite dishonest for you to say that you are using a definition that “confuses” you. If you’re confused by the definition, doesn’t that necessitate that you’re using something else when making actual decisions about what to identify as “violence” and what not to identify as “violence”?

    Moreover, I’ve identified certain rapes as “not violence”. And yet I’m happy to tell you that I find those rapes “bad” even if I manage to find them “not violence”. To tell the people on this thread that I’m basing my decisions on what to add to the category “violence” when I’ve clearly ID’d certain rapes as “not violence” clearly implies that I find some rapes “not bad”.

    Fuck you very much for the implication. Do you think this shit through, or is it just off the top of your head?

    =======================

    Separately, I’m trying again on an important point:

    1. You believe taxes are violence.
    2. You believe taxes are good.
    3. Therefore you believe one particular type violence is good.
    [For clarification, but really just a restatement of 3:
    4. Therefore you believe that some violence is good.]

    This is practically a classic syllogism, n’est-ce pas?
    1. Man is mortal
    2. Socrates is mortal
    3. Therefore some Socrates is good.

    Now let’s look at your reasoning **IF** you want to reduce all violence:
    1. Taxes are violence
    2. Violence is something unlikeable and to be reduced
    3. Therefore Taxes are to be reduced.

    But there is some level of taxation below which you do not want taxes to be reduced.

    You’ve said so yourself.

    Therefore, as a hypothetical, assume that taxes have reached this level for you.

    At this point, the syllogism would be:
    1. Taxes are violence
    2. Violence is something to be reduced
    3. Therefore i don’t want to reduce taxes.

    All of these statements would be true, but you can’t reach 3 from just 1 & 2. There has to be something else there for you to decide which violence you want to reduce, when, by how much, and when to stop.

    What are the missing steps from this logical series?

    Whatever those missing steps are **those** are the real things that you use to determine whether or not something phenomenon should be more rare than it is currently in this world.

    For me, knowing it is violence is enough. There are some kinds of violence that I would never attempt to reduce directly: specifically reasonable self-defense. There may be others.

    I am happy to say I want to reduce them. There’s no minimum level where I’d be, “Oh, that’s a good level of violence, let’s stop our reduction efforts here.”

    There **IS** a minimum level where you would assert, “Oh, that’s a good level of taxation, let’s stop our reduction efforts here.” Not so for me with any form of violence. At best, with something like violence in self-defense, I would limit my reduction efforts to indirect efforts. In this case, the example is that by reducing aggressive violence, we ultimately reduce violent self-defense.

    There’s no level of self-defense with which I’m happy, but the answer isn’t to punish those who engage in self-defense or to ban self-defense or whatever.

    See the difference? Although my tactics differ for reducing different kinds of violence, there simply isn’t any violence I would want to preserve.

    There **is** violence that you would wish to preserve: specifically some level of justification.

    Thus you can’t argue that “If X = violence, X must be reduced.” Otherwise you would want to reduce taxes to zero.

    So, there you are. There are steps missing from your logical chain. I can’t explain it more plainly than that. The easiest way to start explaining what is missing from the decision making process is to start with the example of taxation and tell us what you would argue to preserve taxation if taxation levels had gotten low enough that you would not wish them lower.

  384. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Crip Dyke
    I assume you want some replies.

    No you have no onus to explain yourself. You have no onus to engage. However, I do think that you have the moral responsibility to be honest. Honesty doesn’t mean you have to engage at all. However, to the extant that you engage, you should be honest, which IMO includes the requirements that you take a reasonable effort to communicate clearly, clear up miscommunications, and try to explain your position.

    Your analysis of my position includes an equivocation fallacy. The equivocation is on the word “good”. IMHO, it is likely the result of a mind with ambiguity intolerance, a kind of black-and-white thinking. It’s often associated with dogmaticism, religious thinking, and right wing politics. For you, we get one out of three. … As I’ve said numerous times, when all of my options are evil, but there is a least option option, then it is morally required to take that least evil option. We generally call that “good” or “justified”. However, without contradiction, we can also simultaneously hold that the outcome is undesirable – compared to some unattainable hypothetical.

    See the difference? Although my tactics differ for reducing different kinds of violence, there simply isn’t any violence I would want to preserve.

    The same is true for me. I thought I made it clear in the above post when I said this: (bolding in original)
    Quoting me:

    It’s also true that with the materials I have been given, the rules of physics, this planet, human nature, and the current technological level, I cannot rid this world of violence. Without taxes, there is no government, which means anarchy, which means lots of violence. I have decided that taxes represent far less violence than anarchy. Still, I would love to lessen violence as much as possible / reasonable. (Specifically: I would love to improve human well-being as much as I can.)

    It could have been otherwise. Our world could have been like the afterlife in the movie What Dreams May Come, where physical violence is impossible, where material can literally be wished into existence, where land space is endless and free. Taxes are no longer needed. If I could, I would wave that magic wand to make our world more like the afterlife of What Dreams May Come, but that is not within my power, nor the collective power of everyone on the planet. It saddens me that I do not have that magic wand.

    What’s not to get?

    However, as another argument to the same conclusion, I say this: In some cases I have determined that I can drastically improve the well-being of everyone in society by applying a relatively miniscule amount of violence, in this case in the form of taxes. By my standards, including Rawls’s veil of ignorance, this is a great decision.

    Here’s an example you might like. I have also made the determination that creating a program which strongly incentivizes the adminstration of vaccines to small children is likely to result in real, serious, possible lethal harm to some of the children. It’s rare, but I know that vaccines on rare occasion can have very serious side effects. It happens. However, I have done the moral calculus that this harm, this violence, is worth it, because it will drastically improve the well-being of everyone at the cost of a random few, a very small few. Of important note, it also passes Rawls’s veil of ignorance test.

    What about the government incentives to get vaccines? Is that violence enough for you? I should have thought of this example earlier. I’m not talking abot pinpricks. I’m talking about the very real and serious, if rare, complications that result from vaccinations, including deaths. I would not sacrifice large amounts of human well-being in order to squash relatively miniscule amounts of violence. I would work to enact government policy of strong incentivization of vaccines knowing full well that my actions have the likely effect of causing severe harm to a very small percentage of the population, that my actions are severe violence to a very small percentage of the population. In at least two states, there is no conscientious dissenter exception nor religious exemption to vaccinating schoolchildren, which means it is effectively required for all poor children in those states. It is not voluntary. It is forceful. It regularly, if rarely, results in deaths. Those who enact the policy know it will result in some deaths. Thus they act with the knowledge of the probable effects of their actions, which is intent. It is violence.

    I think you understand the terms. As best as I can understand your position, it must entail that you are categorically against government schemes to enforce vaccinations. That, or you recognize that sometimes we have to do a little bit of violence to prevent much larger amount of harm. If you are against vaccinations because it counts as violence – and it does, the harm is real, the deaths are real – then you are a miserable human being on this topic, because you would sacrifice the well-being of everyone on your altar of “no violence”.

    In my moral reasoning, the same kind of moral calculus leads to me the conclusion that the relatively miniscule violence of taxes is greatly outweighed by the benefits to human well-being applies in exactly the same way (but to differing extents) to make the conclusion that the relatively miniscule violence of incentivizing vaccination is greatly outweighed by the benefits of having near universal vaccination. I am not a libertarian. I am not a pacificst. I sometimes embrace the use of miniscule amounts of violence for the common good when I have no alternatives. In this world where my tools are limited, violence is a tool in my toolbox, but of course it is a tool of last resort, to be wielded rarely, wisely,

  385. Grewgills says

    @EL #various
    Leaving aside the IRS for now.
    Your use of violence seems to include any creation of any boundary of any kind. If I say to you, “if you kick my dog you will have to leave my home” I will have done violence to you because if you do kick my dog then refuse to leave I may call the police to escort you out of my home. If I simply say to you that if you enter my home I will consider it trespass, I will have committed violence against you since if you choose to come into my home I may call the police to have you removed.

    ***TRIGGER WARNING***
    By the same token an abuse victim who tells their abuser that if the abuse continues they will call the police has committed an act of violence against their abuser.
    ***END TRIGGER WARNING***
    (I hope I did that right. I apologize if I did not and would welcome suggestions on how to do it properly.)

    That seems an overly broad to the point of being useless definition of violence to me.

  386. says

    Grewgills
    That’s why people have said that EL has redefined “violence” into meaninglessness, because now everyting is violence, because it can always be escalated to police locking you up. Taxes, speed limits, the rules for staying at my house…

    +++
    Anteprepro
    I must thank you for linking to Anita Sarkeesian’s thesis. I can use it as a secondary source for mine!

  387. Maureen Brian says

    This at somewhat of a tangent but not entirely irrelevant.

    I spent last evening at a lecture in the local Methodist Hall by historian Peter Higginbotham, a specialist in the operation of the Poor Laws in England. We began with the Poor Relief Act of 1601 which – feudalism being by then extinct – placed responsibility for the care of the very poor and the most vulnerable with the individual parish. This was to be funded by a levy on those in each parish who had the means to contribute. It was a levy and not a tax because central government did not set the rates, identify who should pay it or in any way enforce it. Rates were set and changed as necessary by the parish officials, some ex officio and some elected.

    This was as close as a developed society could come to a voluntary system. Beyond a little light social pressure the Board had no means of enforcing payment, the criminal law did not impact upon it, the state, having identified where responsibility lay, had no interest in what happened locally.

    In time, some parishes according to local circumstances identified a vacant house into which the sick and the poor could be moved. Whether you went there or not was entirely voluntary and you were free to leave at any time. The majority of the aid was in cash or as an allowance of staple foods, after an investigation of the family’s circumstances.

    As capitalism developed, bringing the movement of large numbers into areas where mills and factories could be sited and depleting the population in rural areas, this system began to feel unfair, especially to those paying in. In some areas not enough affluent people remained to contribute, in others the demand was more than the Boards of Guardians could handle.

    Capitalism being by its nature cyclical the booms were followed by slumps – sometimes of a couple of weeks, more often of a year or so. So, eventually, we got the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 which told the individual parishes to link up in groups, called Unions, and build a workhouse to serve several adjacent parishes to take advantage of economies of scale. Going into the workhouse was, again, entirely voluntary – depending upon what you mean by voluntary!

    The workhouses were not necessarily as grim as some fictional accounts but they had disadvantages. They broke up families, even thought all members lived in the same building, by age, state of health and gender with very limited opportunities even to communicate. Inmates lost their homes and their few possessions. They were also a poor means of addressing unemployment as workers were cut off from the opportunity of the odd couple of hours of casual work which might lead on to a regular job and from knowledge that “things are picking up” in a town even a few miles away – what we now promote as networking.

    Again there’s no force or threat of force. The Todmorden Union – in which I sit to type this – held out longest against actually building that one, large workhouse. They believed that local circumstances meant they could do perfectly well without one. Eventually, they succumbed. Peter may know but I’m not sure why.

    One good thing to come out of all this was the workhouse infirmary. Initially they were dreadful places but from 1870 onwards they rapidly improved. Some of this was the developments in medicine itself but a lot came from the actions of reformers, among them Florence Nightingale who really should be more famous as a statistician and an administrator than she is. The election of women from the 1870s to the Boards of Guardians may well have had an impact too.

    So long before the NHS in 1948 we already had a hospital service available to the poor and free at the point of need to complement the large charity hospitals in the major cities but coverage was patchy. The workhouses went out of use and their infirmaries were incorporated into the new system.

    No violence here in three and a half centuries, no threat of force just development of systems to cope with something which, as was already agreed, was everyone’s responsibility.

    There really are some questions, especially about governance, which are better answered by observation of actual societies in detail and preferably over time than by resorting to formal logic or political theory.

  389. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Now I feel as guilty as Hell.
    My grandsons are 3 and 4 years old. Yesterday they visited after school and we took my wee mutt (a terrier-ist) for his walk. Stopping at the local shop I gave them – the boys, not the mutt – a couple of quid each which they promptly spent on chocolate and biscuits (U.S. – cookies).
    In the U.K. chocolate and biscuits attract the dreaded Value Added Tax. That tax will go to the government, enabling it to commit just a little more violence.
    I have therefore corrupted two innocent little boys into an act of inciting or conspiring to incite violence.

    E.L., when you define’ unreasonable’ as ‘not agreeing with you’, and when pretty much everybody here disagrees with you, you are setting yourself up as the only reasonable person here.
    I’d check your ego if I were you. At the very least a little reality check might be in order.

    You have consistently shown a desperate need to be seen as the most intelligent person at the party, yet the gulf between your inflated self-image and what you actually write is so vast I suspect that you wouldn’t be the smartest person at the party if you were the only fucking person there!

  390. pHred says

    Tony! @369

    That is soooo cool! I have long been fascinated with anomalocaridids, ever since I read Gould’s book reporting the interpretation of them as several separate organisms.

    I have to remember this if I ever get a chance to teach Historical Geology again.

  391. anteprepro says

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-: Glad to have been helpful! I accidentally did something constructive for a change. We will see if that happens again.

  392. pHred says

    I have decided that there isn’t enough popcorn in the universe to make this worth it.

  393. anteprepro says

    EL:

    No you have no onus to explain yourself. You have no onus to engage. However, I do think that you have the moral responsibility to be honest. Honesty doesn’t mean you have to engage at all. However, to the extant that you engage, you should be honest, which IMO includes the requirements that you take a reasonable effort to communicate clearly, clear up miscommunications, and try to explain your position.

    That’s it. The projection is officially too much. The theater is now on fire.

  394. anteprepro says

    This truly is a depressing affair. If EL were just slightly more coherent, or slightly less of a pompous ass, or slightly more willing to budge an inch, this whole silly affair would have been finished about 500 comments ago. But EL has a unique combination of egotism, stubbornness, poor communication, and knowledge of philosophical jargon to turn an otherwise small debate, something that boils down entirely into a difference in interpreting the definition of one word, into a massive fucking shitstorm. And a barely readable one at that. EL has repeated themselves so much, so frequently missing the point, and goes in such a handwringing, self-absorbed fashion, trying to show off his Philosopher Street Cred, that it is hard to read even a fraction of it all without your eyes bleeding. It’s as if EL just wanted to write a long philosophical treatise on The Nature of Violence and Gubmint, and everyone else is just a distraction or a starting point for him to begin Chapter 59.

    And it isn’t even the first time. It is all truly a marvel to behold.

  395. Saad says

    Is there a general word we can apply to both a toothbrush and a hamburger since they both go in your mouth?

    We’ve done it with taxation and genocide, so why not branch out and ruin the rest of the fucking English language?

  396. Okidemia says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden #383

    Thus you can’t argue that “If X = violence, X must be reduced.” Otherwise you would want to reduce taxes to zero.

    Actually there might be some alternative. E.g., taxes be volunteer.

    That would work in an ideal world where rational decision agents would understand they actually benefit from “paying” taxes (collective pot for collective common goods, and even maybe collective… pot). That would work in an ideal world where rational decision agents understand that “cheat” is pronounced almost the same as “shit”, and would lead to everyone cheating if only one forces out.

    That’s probably why taxes are legaly enforced. Too much shit getting volunteers, and practical volunteers are usually those who shouldn’t, compared to those who really should.

  397. anteprepro says

    Saad:

    Is there a general word we can apply to both a toothbrush and a hamburger since they both go in your mouth?

    ……….violence?

  398. pHred says

    @393 anteprepro

    IMHO the theater has been on fire for ages now.

    That … that was the sound of the ceiling collapsing.

  399. bassmike says

    I’ve been trying to follow this *ahem* discussion and the conclusion I’ve drawn is that it’s like turtles:

    Violence all the way down.

  400. Saad says

    anteprepro,

    ……….violence?

    I suppose one could draw blood from the gums with a hard bristle toothbrush.

  401. anteprepro says

    Looks like Chas decided to be Chas. In a thread about naming a rapist and about the various pressures against doing so.

    He decides that it would be perfect to leave this comment:

    srsly?
    An accusation is evidence for the self-same accusation?
    X is evidence for X, therefore X?
    unbelievable.

    Chas, go get banned, you heartless, pedantic, pestering little doucheweasel.
    You are more offended by Improper Logic than by someone being raped and the various pressures against coming forward about rape.

    You are part of the fucking problem, asshole. And the fact that this is part of a consistent trend for you….just fuck.

    Fuck off already. You are just completely unbelievable.

  407. says

    bassmike @309:

    I’ve been trying to follow this *ahem* discussion and the conclusion I’ve drawn is that it’s like turtles:
    Violence all the way down.

    A true follower of this *ahem* discussion would know that the inescapable conclusion is that it’s like turtles:
    kidnapping all the way down.
    Or maybe its taxes all the way down.
    Or is that gubmint?

    Dammit, I think I’m broken too!

  409. Saad says

    Tony, #407

    Or maybe its taxes all the way down.

    Trickle-down economics makes sense all of a sudden.

  410. The Mellow Monkey says

    AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

    It’s no surprise, but I’m crying all the same.

  411. bassmike says

    Tony! & Saad I think this discussion is taking its toll one everyone….and I’m just a bystander. Heaven knows how it’s affected you poor people immersed in the whole thing. You have my perpetual admiration.

  412. bassmike says

    I’ve posted about Terry in the lounge, but I will reiterate that I will miss reading his books and his eloquent, but far too infrequent, appearances on TV and radio.

  413. pHred says

    Damn – my stupid phone actually popped up a notification during class. It was all I could do not to burst into tears there. At least a couple of my students had acutally heard of him.

    Re-reading Going Postal, right now. Will follow up with Small Gods. Then probably cry some. Sigh.

  414. Grewgills says

    @Tony #348
    Government employees are required to archive all government related emails. Hillary used a private email account for government business during her tenure as Sec of State. Her emails weren’t archived for the government. She has now started turning over those emails, but it is her staff rather than government archivists that are deciding which emails to turn over. This isn’t problematic for emails she sent to government employees on their government accounts as those are automatically archived. What isn’t known at this point is if she communicated government business with other private email accounts on her private email account. If it is only her staffers who look at her emails and decide which ones to turn over we will never know (unless someone comes forward with emails from her). She could have, for instance, had email communication with other administration or state department employees private emails about matters of state that were not properly archived.
    Using a private email account for government business has since become illegal. I certainly wouldn’t trust Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any similar person doing the same thing, so I have some sympathy for those who don’t trust Hillary for doing so. She should allow government archivists or some similarly neutral party make the determination which of her emails during her tenure as SoS should be archived.

  415. Okidemia says

    Meanwhile a deputy proposed a law making vote mandatory, and fined 35 euros if you don’t.

  416. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    No response yet? Yeah. Vaccination is usually my first go-to in dealing with libertarians. How fascinating that I think it’s my strongest argument here too.

    Vaccinations do kill people, albeit absurdly rarely. When the government incentivizes vaccines, they know that this course of action will cause some children to die who might not have otherwise died from complications from vaccines. Thus they take actions knowing the consequences. That’s intent. Maybe they also intend to make the world a better place, but that doesn’t change their knowledge and deliberate action to kill a very very small number of children by vaccinating children. Surely this is violence by everyone’s definition – or we’re back to the Humpty Dumpty standard of the definition of “violence”, where “violence” means precisely whatever Crip Dyke finds convenient at the moment, e.g. ad-hoc.

    Perhaps some people here might say that the government incentives for vaccination don’t change the fact that vaccination is voluntary. After we resolve this issue, I would love to debate that, because that is wrong. However, then vaccination of children sounds like it’s violence being committed by the parents who voluntarily make it for the child who cannot consent. The parents are committing violence to the children. It’s like playing Russian Roullette with a gun – except with many more barrels. One barrel contains a bullet, and the other million+ barrels contain a prize.

    Hell – the W.H.O. talks about community violence, and cultural vaccination movements seem like a perfect example of that. I don’t care how you want to assign blame – the parents, the government,etc. – but this is clearly the community acting with foreknowledge, and thus acting with intent, and thus acting with violence.

    Of course, my goal here is to show an example of violence which is currently unavoidable, one which even Crip Dyke wouldn’t actually change if they were in control of the government. Of course, I’m still agreeing with Crip Dyke that if I had a magic wand and could change the rules of reality so that childhood disease was no longer a thing, then I would definitely use that magic wand. However, I don’t have that magic wand, and so I have to use this itty bitty bit of violence in order to drastically make the world better.

  417. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Okidemia:

    Actually there might be some alternative. E.g., taxes be volunteer.
    That would work in an ideal world where …

    Well,

    1. Taxation is violence. Presumably either whatever scheme you concoct is not a tax scheme, or whatever scheme you concoct is still violence. Either way, you can’t get violence to zero until you get taxes to zero.

    2. EL is constantly skipping back and forth between “In the real world, we always have to have enforcement mechanisms, blah, blah,” and “by definition”. EL has said that taxes are necessary (amongst other adjectives). Thus either EL believes that “presumably” you **can’t** implement your suggestion or that **even if one could, one wouldn’t want to**. By definition.
    I don’t even care which it is. EL’s writing is only sometimes sufficiently explicit to determine whether EL is talking “by definition” or “in practice, in the examples that come easily to mind”. But to say taxes are “necessary” is to say that there is no solution which permits their demise. Whatever the impediments, be they extant on all possible worlds or be they only conditional but common features of our specific world, they can only be insurmountable if taxes are “necessary”.

  418. says

    Maybe they also intend to make the world a better place, but that doesn’t change their knowledge and deliberate action to kill a very very small number of children by vaccinating children. Surely this is violence by everyone’s definition – or we’re back to the Humpty Dumpty standard of the definition of “violence”, where “violence” means precisely whatever Crip Dyke finds convenient at the moment, e.g. ad-hoc.

    This projection is rich coming from the person who has redefined violence so broadly that it no longer has any meaning.

    Hell – the W.H.O. talks about community violence, and cultural vaccination movements seem like a perfect example of that. I don’t care how you want to assign blame – the parents, the government,etc. – but this is clearly the community acting with foreknowledge, and thus acting with intent, and thus acting with violence.

    And yet curiously, the WHO report contains no suggestions on treating the violence that is vaccination.

    In a report on identifying and combating violence around the world.

    It’s almost like they don’t count vaccination as violence. Just like they don’t appear to count incarceration as violence. Only libertarians do that. And EnlightenmentLiberal.

  419. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Tony
    So, apparently according to Tony, some combination of “actual physical harm is very rare, it’s done for a noble purpose, and the physical harm is done to random members of the population” can make even killing with foreknowledge and intent into not violence. And people are accusing me of altering the definition whenever it suites me. Rich.

  420. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Of course, that was a paraphrase/ interpretation. Sorry. Forgot to indicate that.

  421. Esteleth, RN's job is to save your ass, not kiss it says

    Vaccination? Seriously?

    What of the argument that failing to make vaccination mandatory is itself violent, insofar that allowing the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases will result in far more widespread morbidity and mortality than vaccination?

  423. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @416:

    There have been lots of things posted to TD. If you’re looking for a response to something specific, it would do you well to cite the specific thing…like perhaps a number of a comment you made.

    Are you looking for a response from someone specific? Identify the person from whom you were expecting a response (or from whom you would kindly like a response).

    Further, you note that I wrote virtual tomes above about the behaviors of yours that have cost you my good will. Clearly none of that shit is for lurkers. I’m not taking that time to warm Giliell’s heart or tickle rq’s toes. It was for you.

    And yet, and yet…

    …I didn’t pop up saying, “Wow, no response yet from EnlightenmentLiberal to my comment #x?”

    You are not entitled to a response. It’s an open thread. While “no response yet” in a thread with no relevant context isn’t enough to cost you good will, when you dis people for failing to give you information you want, **when you act like you are entitled to my effort whenever you feel like you want to know something** you are acting with an offensive degree of entitlement that is bound to rub some people the wrong way.

    When you then refuse to acknowledge information handed to you about how you are hurting others and costing yourself goodwill, when you don’t even issue a half-ass “not-pology”
    like,

    gee, I had no idea that my carping that you weren’t writing about X would actually feel to a woman on the internet like an unreasonable demand to perform for me, a la, “Tits or GTFO,” but let me say that if you were offended or hurt, I certainly apologize,

    and then you start your comments with a, “what? I don’t have a response waiting for me”, that comes across as the continuation of a pattern of bad behavior rather than an equivocal statement that might just as reasonably be hope combined with the fact that I (or whomever else you had in mind) has been commenting fairly frequently lately.

    Your comments are evidence, mounting evidence, evidence uncontradicted by any contrition, that you know from reading my comments that you are injuring other people, but you just don’t fucking care.

    Worse than that: in this recent comment #416 you continue after your initial misstep contemplating the absence of a response and assume that this somehow indicates your effectiveness in baffling/silencing me (or whomever the fuck, since you can’t be arsed to actually address your communication to someone specific).

    You do this without any indication that you think that would actually be a **bad fucking outcome**.

    You do this saying that this silence isn’t evidence for my chores and kittens but evidence of the strength of your argument. You act as if silence (mine or whomever’s) is a victory for you.

    When you tell a woman “Tits or GTFO” and the woman actually chooses one of your options, it’s easy to tell how horrific your behavior is.

    When you repeatedly demand that someone set their rhetoric dancing to your tune, …

    […which, by the by, requires them to actually spend real time using their real body to do your bidding…which means freedom has been constrained, which means you’re engaging in fucking violence…]

    …and then celebrate silence as victory, it provides quite a bit of evidence that while you were saying, “Respect my confyooshun-ay!” you were mentally adding, “or GTFO”. Otherwise you would be bemoaning silence, not celebrating it as evidence of your oh-so-manly rhetorical strength. That implied “or GTFO” makes it less easy to tell how horrible your behavior is…

    …but it certainly doesn’t give us any evidence your behavior is NOT horrible.

    You may not feel any success at others’ silence or other things for which I have evidence but not proof. I can easily be wrong. Your words may have motives entirely untouched by social conditioning.

    But here in the **real** world, where I literally am Rehtaeh Parsons, Caroline Criado-Perez, (and, hell, Jane fucking Austen too,) Amanda Todd, Rebecca Watson, and Anita Sarkeesian, I don’t have access to your thoughts, only the words you choose to type. I don’t get to live in Omelas, like you, where everything is happy and everyone is equal. When you act like others’ silence is your success, I have to believe that you want other people silent. I don’t have any evidence for any other proposition.

    So your behavior, as analyzed by real world criteria, and reasonably so, is making you look pretty awful.

    Even if you don’t give a shit about how other people feel; even if you don’t give a shit that your behavior makes my mockery of you more likely to take unfriendly than friendly forms; even if you aren’t literally hoping for others silence as a way to make yourself feel better and more confident in your rhetoric; you might, just might, want to stop acting in such a way as to lead other people you’re being an awful human being. For your own fucking sake.

  424. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal, #384

    Honesty doesn’t mean you have to engage at all. However, to the extant that you engage, you should be honest, which IMO includes the requirements that you take a reasonable effort to communicate clearly, clear up miscommunications, and try to explain your position.

    No. Any ethical burden/onus/requirement that I “clear up miscommunication” logically entails that

    1. your confusion
    2. creates an ethical burden
    3. on me
    4. to communicate
    5. that which you identify
    6. as likely to clear up your confusion

    You cannot create an ethical burden on me to speak about that which you want me to reveal on the basis of your confusion alone. It doesn’t happen. Such an ethical burden does not exist. Ever.

    it is exactly this, “You must speak to me or you are unethical” attitude that I have called out as wrong and creepy, and which you **apparently** agreed was wrong immediately before you made this statement.
    Here I’m citing the same comment, #384, same paragraph, when you say:

    “No you have no onus to explain yourself.”

    I have no onus to explain myself, I only have an onus to clear up miscommunications? Do you get that that’s even fucking worse? “Miscommunications” can happen on either end. An onus to explain myself might be discharged in the original post. “I believe X. Here are the reasons.”

    But if you have a reading comprehension that tests at z < -3, even if I've "explained myself" in the original post, I now have an ethical onus to “clear up miscommunications”? Holy I am Groot!, Batman!

    Further, how do you even go from “I do not understand. Somewhere from your formulation something to say to my brain’s final effort at deriving meaning, the attempt at communication proved inadequate” to “You are ethically burdened”? Does it not make you realize that, given the majority and the powerful have their perspectives all the time, but that insular and marginalized and abused minorities have their lives exorcized and mythologized in confusing ways that this inevitably puts a burden on the oppressed that exacerbates oppression while functionally imposing a far smaller burden on the privileged which they, should they choose, be able to discharge more easily and at grossly less personal cost?

    Your formulation, as blame-neutral as it is, leads directly to absurdities and injustices like this:

    Crip Dyke: I am transsexual.
    Conversation partner: I am confused. Does that mean you were born with a penis or does that mean you had one surgically constructed at some point?
    CD: I don’t want to talk about my genitals, but it appears I have an ethical burden to do so. Perhaps it would be easier if I just pulled down my pants, like so. Is my ethical burden discharged yet?
    CP: Actually, no. When you say, “I am transsexual,” do you mean that as something distinct from, “I am transgender”? I’ve never been clear on the terms. Perhaps you could spend several thousand words over a couple forum pages defining it until I have no confusion left in me? Or, frankly, until I get tired of thinking about transsexual people, because really I have no honest intent at understanding anything about trans* life complex enough to require thousands of words to say. Probably a lot of your writing will be repeating yourself in slightly different words in order to answer my increasingly personal, repetitive, and annoying questions.
    CD: I’m sorry, I’m only obliged to make reasonable efforts, so I’m thinking 1200 words max… and no more than 3 questions about my genitalia will be answered.
    CP: Fair enough. But there’s another issue.
    CD: Okay, and what would that be?
    CP: Well, I really don’t understand what “transsexual” tits are. I don’t know if when you say you’re transsexual you’re implying you had tit surgery or what. Removing your shirt and allowing me a couple hours to examine them at my leisure would help.
    CD: Reasonable efforts only, jackass! I will not be removing my shirt and standing here for hours just to satisfy my ethical obligation to you that kicked in when I identified as transsexual to someone who doesn’t know the first thing about lived trans* experience.
    CP: Ah! But you know that very few people, as a fraction of the whole anyway, know the first thing about lived trans* experience (whatever that may be). It’s unreasonable of you to use a word that I could look up on the internet and find thousands of words to satisfy my curiosity but that I am unlikely to already know and use comfortably. Unreasonable of you, I say. Where are your concessions to your duty to clear up the miscommunications that inevitably happen when people like you start talking about your weirdly sexed bodies?
    CD: I didn’t talk about my body I just was ta…. Sigh. Five minutes then.
    CP: That’s reasonable.

    Whatever the fuck is between, “There has been a neutral, blameless failure of communication on somebody’s part, certainly not in such a manner that I can prove it was either intentional on the part of the speaker or even solely on the part of the speaker, thus I describe it as as miscommunication,” and, “You are ethically burdened,” needs to leave the building. There should be no connection between them.

    Your ability to ethic is atrocious – bordering on your ability to reading comprehend.

    Is that clear?

  426. says

    Going by EL’s comments, I’m thinking we can eliminate a few words from the English language-
    • kidnap
    • taxes
    • government
    • incarceration
    (did I miss any?)
    In their place, we can just say violence.

  427. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Tony,

    Also, having kids is violence since anything you do that relates to them is almost by definition violence.

  428. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal, #419:

    So, apparently according to Tony, some combination of “actual physical harm is very rare, it’s done for a noble purpose, and the physical harm is done to random members of the population” can make even killing with foreknowledge and intent into not violence. And people are accusing me of altering the definition whenever it suites me. Rich.

    Actually it’s almost like you agreed that WHO would be the final authority on what constitutes violence and Tony! consistently uses only WHO sources to clarify what is and isn’t violence ==>presumably because they are using their own definition and they know what their definition means and what it includes

    …while you employ the definition provided by WHO and reject the definition provided by WHO based on whether or not their conclusions mirror the conclusions reached when one employs **your** definition of violence …that you have yet to spell out here, other than to say that the WHO definition is acceptable (before you rejected WHO’s definition).

    Who the fuck is dishonestly changing the definition at whim? Tony! is using the WHO definition as interpreted by WHO. Because Tony! let you choose any definition at all and you chose that one.

    What do you say about the WHO definition?
    #89:

    The WHO definition looks satisfactory. We can use that if you want. I’m still a little confused about that definition, …

    #122, after consistently referencing the WHO definition and concluding it supports your argument:

    I have to consider that the threats from the IRS against me, a simple salaried employee, are true threats, and thus it counts as violence under the WHO definition.

    #215, still convinced incarceration counts as violence for the WHO:

    Contrary to Crip Dyke, throughout the conversation I agreed to use the definitions of “violence” of others. I argued that incarceration counts as violence under most of their definitions. Crip Dyke is lying. Towards the end of the conversation, I’ve been defaulting to the WHO definition. Incarceration is also violence under the WHO definition.

    #224:

    Do you think an unlawful kidnapping on its own is necessarily violence? Do you think that lawful incarceration is necessarily violence? Do you accept the WHO definition of violence as sufficiently accurate? If yes to all, then it follows that you must put incarceration in that list of “assault, murder, and rape” – otherwise it’s not violence. You’re being unreasonable here.

    but later in #224, EnlightenmentLiberal reads Tony!’s researched comment on to what extent WHO considers incarceration violence:

    Of note: they don’t explain what they mean by deprivation. …

    Surely if the authors felt that “incarceration (or taxes for that matter) is violence”, it would have been addressed in the report.

    I’m not a mindreader. I didn’t know that. I also don’t care enough about what they think to read the rest of their website, especially if it means that the WHO considers an unlawful kidnapping on its own to be non-violent. Consciousness razor has already adopted the position that unlawful kidnapping on its own is not violence. I have nothing to say to that. If you also want to adopt that position, then I have nothing more constructive which I can say to you either.

    After another exchange with Tony!, realizing that the evidence actually does support the idea that WHO does not consider incarceration per se to be violence, we get this…
    #229:

    Irrelevant or inaccurate. If the WHO holds that an unlawful kidnapping itself is not violence, then I can completely disregard the WHO as ridiculous and irrelevant.

    So… One person deploys the WHO definition so long as it supports the conclusions to which that person clings. The other concedes the choice of definition of the first and continues to cite a single authority over and over. When the conversation goes in such a way as to make the first person happy or when the conversation goes in such a way as to make the first person sad, the second person stays rock solid in deferring to the authority selected by the first person. The first person agrees that for the purpose of this ThunderDome WHO is the authority, and then asserts:

    I can completely disregard the WHO as ridiculous and irrelevant.

    Someone is playing games with the definition and which authority is relevant to understand the definition …

    …and someone isn’t.

    Whom do you suppose the evidence would paint as more dishonest here?

  430. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Y’know, I’m thinking about statements from EL like the following:

    apparently according to Tony, some combination of “actual physical harm is very rare, it’s done for a noble purpose, and the physical harm is done to random members of the population” can make even killing with foreknowledge and intent into not violence.

    And I think I’m finally getting an insight into EL’s real position here…and why so many people, not just me, find it indefensible.

    Permit me to use google translate.

    EL:

    Taxation is violence because it involves true threats of violence in the course of enforcement. And threats of violence are true violence. [Which of course means threatening to threaten someone is truly violence, since you are threatening to do something, in this case to issue a threat, that is itself violence.]

    bEep.BooP.

    Vvrrrinnnggg!
    Google Translate:

    Taxation is violence because you put in a very small amount of incareration-violence over here at this end, then you dilute it with threats, then you dilute those with threatening to threaten, then you dilute those with threats of threatening to threaten, and then you dilute again following the same procedure oh, about 8 to 30 times, depending. Finally, you distill it all into a bill that contains only implied threats and wrap it in a sweet, sweet ball of justification in the form of pamphlets and posters touting parks and schools and vaccines. While from the outside you see only the sweetness, nonetheless the taxes contain a quantum memory of the original violence.

    Even more insidious, the more dilute the incarceration-violence, the more potent the tax-violence actually is! Terrible! Terrible I tell you!

    That google translate is a bit melodramatic, don’t you think?

    Still, provides sugar for thought.

  431. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Crip Dyke,

    I regret not having enough time to follow this conversation, I can only keep up by skipping a lot.

    The bit about children really stuck with me since it is so obviously absurd and clashes (violently) with EL’s notion that taxing being violent is a reason there should be less taxes to pay. But maybe people just shouldn’t have children on basis that they will be compelled to be violent towards them and that would just be bad.

    … I’m sorry. I think I got stuck in my own circular argument. I can’t imagine how EL must be feeling by now.

  432. Saad says

    EnlightenmentLiberal, #416

    When the government incentivizes vaccines, they know that this course of action will cause some children to die who might not have otherwise died from complications from vaccines. Thus they take actions knowing the consequences. That’s intent. Maybe they also intend to make the world a better place, but that doesn’t change their knowledge and deliberate action to kill a very very small number of children by vaccinating children. Surely this is violence by everyone’s definition […]

    This morning I saw a man helping his little daughter onto the school bus. Millions of parents do this on a daily basis, knowing full well that there is a very small chance one of the buses will eventually be involved in an accident and the children will get injured or worse. It’s merely a matter of time. Thus these parents take this action knowing the consequences. That’s intent.

    There. I’ve just made EL say that packing a nutritious lunch for your seven year old child and giving them a big hug before putting them on a school bus is violence.

    This could be fun.

  433. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Parent of the Theory of Homeopathic Violence. If only EL hadn’t, in the course of parenting, …

    …oh, never mind.

  435. rq says

    bassmike upthread
    Your comment there was about the only one that makes sense to me right now (turtles -> violence -> all the way down – and suddenly I have the Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles song in my head).
    I came back to this thread after a day of first-aid seminaring, a lot of walking and a rather exhausting choir session, and all I see on the screen is ‘blabbity-blah-blah–blabbity-NEW DEFINITION-blah-blah-blabbity’ from Enlightenment Liberal, and a whole bunch of violent giggling from everyone else.
    Yāll, yer making my head hurt – which, almost by definition, means you’re assaulting me indirectly and thus perpetuating violence.
    Though I perpatuated my own violence by buying some books today and by paying the conductor when I got on the tram. Woe. Woe is me.
    Carry on.

  437. says

    Beatrice @427:
    Good point.

    ****
    Oh, here’s something else that is violence

    As an aside, I argue that all private property rights are violence. Private property rights are a fiction created by the social contract and the government. No one has a metaphysical connection to their house or car. The only reason that it’s yours is because of the consensus of the social contract to make it yours. I generally think private property is a great way to improve well-being. However, I don’t see private property rights as anywhere near inviolable or important as right to bodily integrity, right to food, right to free speech, etc. Especially when it gets to the ridiculous extremes of filthy richness at the cost of their neighbors like in basically every country today, I do want the proletariat to rise up, through peaceful means, elect new legislatures, and pass some damn heavy progressive death taxes and heavy progressive income taxes. Maybe even do something like pass a law to effect a guaranteed minimum wage.

    Looks like we can rid the English language of private property rights and use violence instead.

    I suspect EL most likely means that these kick-’em-out-of-the-English-language words are *examples* of violence, but the wording xe has used in the last few days does not indicate this.

  439. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Saad:

    Slayed again!

    This is getting expensive. Oh, how I hope my party can afford another Raise Dead.

  440. Grewgills says

    @EL #416
    By your current usage giving a child a hard candy is violence. After all we do know that some children choke on hard candies and some of those children die. Hell, feeding a child is violence since some small percentage of children have allergic reactions or choke causing them to die. We know this ahead of time and yet we still feed our children, doing them violence on a daily basis.

  441. says

    Surely this is violence by everyone’s definition

    I’m tempted to say “Surely EL knows that the people responding to them are not using the same definition of violence they are.”
    Then I realized they haven’t offered up their definition of violence. I wonder if that’s intentional?

  442. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Actually, minimum (=living) wage is violence. See, even though it’s bullshit that businesses will start going bust left and right if they are forced to pay their workers a living wage, there probably exists some small number of businesses that will be destroyed. Therefore, government would be willingly putting people’s livelihoods (and therefore lives) in danger by trying to make the world a better place for the majority.

    Surely endangering lives is violence by anyone’s definition.

  443. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Tony!, 437:

    You’re just not understanding the logic:

    As an aside, I argue that all private property rights are violence.

    1. Private property == fiction ………………………………………………………P
    2. Thus, private property == metaphysical ………………………………….ELL (P1)
    3. Thus, private property == consensus ………………………………………ELL (2)
    4. Thus, private property == a great way to improve well-being …..ELL (3)
    5. However, private property == nowhere near inviolable ……………P
    6. Thus, private property == violence ………………………………………….ELL (4 + P5)

    For those uninitiated to formal logic, the operation “ELL” stands for “EnlightenmentLiberalLogic”.

    =======
    also, I have no idea how the formatting is going to end up. I tried to get all the operations & line references somewhat right-justified, but apparently WordPress and EnlightenmentLiberal have something in common: they both think justification can be whatever the hell they want it to be.

  444. Saad says

    Every person suffers some form of physical harm/violence during their lifetime.

    Therefore, having children is violence.

  445. consciousness razor says

    One thing I’m not very sure about….

    Is it the case that doing violence to our language is not violence?
    Or is it one of those necessary violences, which we must all learn to live with and appreciate?

    I’m leaning toward “it’s violence,” since that seems to be the general pattern, but I’m having trouble learning all of the intricacies of EL’s dialect of Newspeak. I’m sure it will somehow be very illuminating for me once I’m fluent.

  446. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @grewgills:

    feeding a child is violence since some small percentage of children have allergic reactions or choke causing them to die. We know this ahead of time and yet we still feed our children, doing them violence on a daily basis.

    You’re making this far more complicated than it needs to be with this food ==> death without any intervening steps.

    A better proof would be:
    1. Food
    2. ==> requires brushing of teeth
    3. ==> parent becomes aware that teeth are not being regularly brushed
    4. ==> parent lovingly encourages the brushing of teeth
    5. ==> child continues to brush teeth imperfectly
    6. ==> parent makes an appointment with dentist
    6.5 ==> parent takes child to dentist
    7. ==> hygienist notices plaque
    8. ==> hygienist attempts thorough cleaning
    9. ==> hygienist discovers cavity
    10. ==> hygienist informs dentist
    11. ==> dentist mandates another appointment
    12. ==> parent schedules another appointment
    13. ==> parent takes child to dentist
    14. ==> dentist uses a device that squirts tiny bits of water into the path of a laser
    15. ==> water instantly vaporized
    16. ==> water accelerated in direction of dental carrie.
    17. ==> water impacts dental carrie repeatedly to smooth out hole, eliminating possibility of sealing in harmful microorganisms during later filling
    18. ==> water impact is violence
    19. ==> feeding children is violence.

    It really doesn’t work unless the violence is sufficiently remote. It’s the dilution effect that really makes it powerful.

  447. numerobis says

    What is this I don’t even…

    My part of the country, I deal with temporary foreign workers and the interaction with employment insurance, and it makes no sense from my point of view — I’m going to put this in terms of colours but it’s not meant to be about race — it makes no sense to pay ‘whities’ to stay home while we bring in brown people to work in these jobs

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/john-williamson-apologizes-for-offensive-comment-on-temporary-workers-program-1.2986283

    I guess it’s nice to see a new way of expressing “I’m not racist but”.

    The MP has apologized, and been roundly criticized by members of his own party.

  448. says

    Saad @432:
    You think that’s violence?
    Think about all the parents that hop in their car and drive their kids to school or the mall or the movies. They do so knowing that a great many children have died in car accidents. They do so knowing the potential consequences. That’s intent. Maybe they’re simply trying to get their kids to a given destination, but that doesn’t change their knowledge and deliberate action to kill a very very small number of children by driving them places. Surely this is violence by everyone’s definition. Worse, it’s violence the parents are committing on themselves and their children.

    I think you’re right. This could be fun.

  452. says

    Saad @444:

    Every person suffers some form of physical harm/violence during their lifetime.
    Therefore, having children is violence.

    …hmmm…
    I wonder if NOT having children is somehow violence too…

  453. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Beatrice, #431:

    I’m sorry. I think I got stuck in my own circular argument. I can’t imagine how EL must be feeling by now.

    Don’t even try. EL is the king of Oval Track Argumentation.

    What does EL do when an argument isn’t winning?

    Go faster. Turn lefter.

  454. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    The child you never had might have cured cancer some day. The possibility is there. Surely knowing that you might be denying people a life saving medication is violence. Therefore, implicitly, not having children is violence.

  456. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Not sure why I am trying this, but what the hell.

    EL claims that xe wants to reduce violence.

    EL claims that taxation is violence, therefore small government and low taxes reduce violence.

    But there is a correlation between state tax rates and violence — the states with lower levels of taxation have higher rates of violent crimes; countries with lower levels of taxation are generally more violent than those with higher taxation levels.

    And there is a correlation between poverty and violence; between education and violence.

    There is also a correlation between police violence and funding and training levels.

    Which would mean to me that if EL is actually interested in reducing violence — not the mind violence of paying to keep society operating, but the violence that kills people, the violence that creates life-long suffering and guilt, the violence that breaks bones, the violence that causes brain damage, the violence that destroys lives — then EL would be in favour of higher tax rates. After all, higher tax rates pay for better schools, smaller class sizes, and better materials. Higher taxes pay for public works projects which circulate money through the economy and reduce poverty. Higher taxes mean that police officers are better trained and the legal system is not using fines to pay for the courts and the police.

    You want less violence, right EL? But you don’t want to pay for it, right? Taxation appears to be the one truly unacceptable violence. Even though adequate funding will reduce violence.

    So, will this be used as a launching point for another tirade against rape, murder, assault, taxation and legal incarceration?

  457. Grewgills says

    @Ogvorbis #456
    To be fair, EL does support a highly progressive tax rate that most conservatives and libertarians would find confiscatory.

  458. Ogvorbis: qui culpam, non redimetur says

    Grewgills:
    I guess I’m confused. EL keeps harping, specifically, on the inherent violence of government (it MUST be smaller) and taxation (it MUST be lower, or, at least, completely voluntary so there is only give in the give-and-take of the social contract). My bad.

  459. consciousness razor says

    How long do you think it will take before you’re fluent in EL-speak?

    I have gone and drunk the Kool-Aid, so it’ll probably be any moment now. If I can find out whether violating language is violence, whether metaphors are violence, whether confusing people is violence, and maybe a few other ways to use the word “violence” (and ways to abuse it… you know, for the embiggenment of mankind), I think I’ll have it all pretty much figured out.

  460. rq says

    Is there a Planck Violence underlying the basic structure of the universe?

    More like an EL Uncertainty Principle. Where everything is violence, just in case it might be something else.

  461. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Grewgills:

    Yep. EL has said that multiple times.

    However, EL thinks taxation should be “reduced”. Most conservatives and libertarians would find 20% confiscatory. Mitt Romney has constantly complained taxes are too high on the rich…and he pays less than 15%, always.

    Unless and until EL states a tax rate or tax scheme with which EL is comfortable, the only reasonable conclusion is that EL wants taxes significantly lower than they are, but significantly above the libertarian ideal … which is zero.

    My best guess, and this is a wild guess, based on those parameters is something between 10% and 33% as a top marginal income tax rate, with similar reductions (or greater, since they are poorer) for other tax payers.

    I really don’t have any data save the existence and amount of the current top marginal tax rate in the US (best guess it hat EL is USA based, but that isn’t certain either) and the unreasonable “starve the beast” taxation philosophy of US libertarians.

    Nor do I think that EL would be particularly enlightening here. Even if EL gave us a number, EL bases this on what programs do good, and how much good they do compared to the evil of taxation. Any day someone could prove a weakness in a program EL had favored or propose a program for which EL had not previously budgeted and the tax rates EL would recommend would change.

    Worse, even though EL declares that taxes are being opposed on the basis of prosecutions (and thus violence), suppose:
    1. (whichever relevant) government unilaterally declared tax prosecutions would be cut in half,
    2. the supposed “compare the harm to the good and balance” process by which EL claims to judge the correct tax rate
    3. would not then permit government to double taxes.

    I truly don’t understand what EL is doing to condemn or endorse taxation, but I strongly suspect the truth of that 3 part hypothetical, which makes me strongly question the assertion that EL is directly balancing harm vs. benefit.

  462. says

    CD

    I’m not taking that time to warm Giliell’s heart or tickle rq’s toes. It was for you.

    Now I haz a sad.
    I knew I should have kept my mouth shut about the oranges in the chocolate.
    Clearly, oranges in chocolate are violence.

  463. jste | cogito ergo violence says

    So vaccines are violence because an incredibly tiny number of people have allergic reactions? I thought I was done with this, but it’s just… EL, stop committing violence against everyone’s good judgement!

    I declare trees violence! Those roots, tearing up MY PROPERTY! Those flowers, allergyifying* my nose! Those branches, crashing down on people heads! Those kids, breaking limbs when they climbed too high!!

    * I made it up. It’s a word now. Violence against language is a thing too.
    —

    On a more serious note, every time I see a mention of Terry Pratchett, I start tearing up again. Dammit, didn’t really expect it to affect me this much.

  464. rq says

    CD
    I only just caught this (thanks to Giliell violently thrusting it in my face):

    I’m not taking that time to warm Giliell’s heart or tickle rq’s toes.

    Nobody tickles my toes and expects to come out of the experience unharmed. Consider this a warning. Which is almost by definition a threat. Therefore violence.

  465. jste | cogito ergo violence says

    Not sure why I am trying this, but what the hell.
    EL claims that xe wants to reduce violence.
    EL claims that taxation is violence, therefore small government and low taxes reduce violence.
    But there is a correlation between state tax rates and violence — the states with lower levels of taxation have higher rates of violent crimes; countries with lower levels of taxation are generally more violent than those with higher taxation levels.
    And there is a correlation between poverty and violence; between education and violence.
    There is also a correlation between police violence and funding and training levels.
    Which would mean to me that if EL is actually interested in reducing violence — not the mind violence of paying to keep society operating, but the violence that kills people, the violence that creates life-long suffering and guilt, the violence that breaks bones, the violence that causes brain damage, the violence that destroys lives — then EL would be in favour of higher tax rates. After all, higher tax rates pay for better schools, smaller class sizes, and better materials. Higher taxes pay for public works projects which circulate money through the economy and reduce poverty. Higher taxes mean that police officers are better trained and the legal system is not using fines to pay for the courts and the police.
    You want less violence, right EL? But you don’t want to pay for it, right? Taxation appears to be the one truly unacceptable violence. Even though adequate funding will reduce violence.

    This. I’ve been trying to work out how to phrase this since I got out of bed, but Ogvorbis is way more eloquent than me, so… This. I honestly don’t understand the fixation on taxes, when decently thought out taxes can do a hell of a lot to reduce violence.

  466. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Giliell, #462:

    Clearly, oranges in chocolate are violence.

    Now that’s goodthink! I’m upping your chocorat to 25 grams/week!

  467. says

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1342663/roller-coaster-accident-statistics-in-2014-worse-than-risk-of-death-by-shark-attack/

    If you choose to take yourself or any of your loved ones (or friends) to ride a roller coaster after reading the above article, you’re committing violence.

    ****

    jste @453:

    I made it up. It’s a word now. Violence against language is a thing too.

    Damn. I just realized that I committed violence against the English language by proposing that we eliminate certain words (@426) and replace them with violence.

    ****

    Beatrice @454:
    Ah, thanks for that explanation. I’m nowhere near as fluent in EL-speak as consciousness razor seems to be. Of course now I’m worried that you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too.

  468. jste | cogito ergo violence says

    Tony!

    Damn. I just realized that I committed violence against the English language by proposing that we eliminate certain words (@426) and replace them with violence.

    Well, if you aren’t finished committing violence again, may I propose you add vaccine to your list of words to violently replace with violence?

  471. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @jste, #468:

    When you say

    violently replace with violence

    Should “with violence” in that phrase be translated as “violently” or “with violence”?

    And, if with violence should actually be translated, “with violence”, would that “with violence” be translated as “violently” or “with violence”?

    Here she comes
    Here comes CD
    She’s a demon on wheels

    …go …faster …turn …lefter!

    Go, CD!
    Go, CD!
    Go, CD, Go!

    …but …if we crash, …I …can’t …win!

    …vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvrroooooooooooommmm!…

    I figure 12 more laps of ThunderDome and I’ll take the lead.

  473. consciousness razor says

    Should “with violence” in that phrase be translated as “violently” or “with violence”?

    And, if with violence should actually be translated, “with violence”, would that “with violence” be translated as “violently” or “with violence”?

    If it’s a threat of replacing “with violence” with “with violence,” such that it is something you don’t literally do by definition, you do translate it as “violently replace violently” (the only other logical possibility) because literally doing that would consist of translating it as “violently replace with violence” which is not a replacement or a translation. If it is replacing “with violence” with “with violence,” such that it is something that you literally do by definition, there is again of course no discernible replacement or translation of anything, so the result is “violently replace with violence.”

  474. jste | cogito ergo violence says

    Crip Dyke

    Good point! Erm… Violently violence the violence violently with violence to replace the violently violent violence with violence? Violently?

    Is that right? I’m not sure. Might not be enough violence. Poor english. We’ll get it right one day.

    Saad

    Roses are red,
    Violence is blue,
    I am committing it,
    And so are you.

    Can I have your brain? It’s better at this than mine is. Also, stop winning all the internets. You should share those.

  475. jste | cogito ergo violence says

    If it’s a threat of replacing “with violence” with “with violence,” such that it is something you don’t literally do by definition, you do translate it as “violently replace violently” (the only other logical possibility) because literally doing that would consist of translating it as “violently replace with violence” which is not a replacement or a translation. If it is replacing “with violence” with “with violence,” such that it is something that you literally do by definition, there is again of course no discernible replacement or translation of anything, so the result is “violently replace with violence.”

    Sound and logical, but does not commit enough violence against the english language. And since my original point was to be as absurd as I can be this early in the morning, it needs more violence.

  476. says

    Huh…I never did learn the answer to my question:

    Government is almost by definition violence? How did you come by this bizarre definition of government?

    That was on March 5. It’s now March 12. Time flies when you’re being violent.

  477. consciousness razor says

    Sound and logical, but does not commit enough violence against the english language. And since my original point was to be as absurd as I can be this early in the morning, it needs more violence.

    Come on, I’m really trying my damnedest here. That is, I think I’m threatening lots and lots of violence to the language, and that is doing violence to it and to everyone who is forced to read it, violently. What more could a reasonably violent person ask for? I mean, this is serious business: what would a maximal amount of violence be like? I’m sure we can get there if we try violently enough.

  478. Lofty says

    Roses are red,
    Violence is blue,
    I am committing it,
    And so are you.

    And taxes are so bad they are way off there in the ultra violent part of the spectrum. They’re UVB, for sure. I’m amazed EL doesn’t get violently sunburnt every time he pays a tax. Perhaps he needs a better tinfoil hat, a broad brimmed one.

  479. consciousness razor says

    And taxes are so bad they are way off there in the ultra violent part of the spectrum. They’re UVB, for sure. I’m amazed EL doesn’t get violently sunburnt every time he pays a tax. Perhaps he needs a better tinfoil hat, a broad brimmed one.

    I’m not sure if that’s a problem. His current hat will probably suffice. Five or six layers should probably be enough for now, with good maintenance.

    Generally, it might be more charitable if we don’t violently believe anything EL literally says. That would be wrong. But specifically related to your violent concerns, we have this:

    Real average citizens (who are required to file income tax reports) are not “under threat” only because they submit to their abuser. If they stopped submitting, then undoubtedly they would be subject to incarceration (eventually).

    Are you going to hold a hypothetical abused spouses to this ridiculous standard, where if the abuser can say “I’m not being violent anymore because I don’t hit her anymore because she has submitted to my authority” ?

    Now, right off the bat, I’ll admit I don’t know which sort of violent hermeneutics should be applied here. This is an empirical matter, which of course simply means we should just agree with what EL thinks about it.

    In any case, it could be taken a few different ways. Is EL one of the “[r]eal average citizens” or not? EL does say that “they” submit, not that we do; and he forms conditionals about what they do and what happens to them. If so, he is technically a victim of the threat of violence hanging over us all, but evidently not the even more egregious violence in the form of actually paying income taxes (or, presumably, other taxes). However, since these are identical, whichever thing actually happens is a distinction without a difference as they say — purely esoteric hogwash only meant to confuse the rabble and spread dishonesty throughout our violent lands. And, as I’ll emphasize again, it’s all up in the air, because I’m not sure whether pronouns should have any definite meanings at all. Also, according to the parable, this “abuse” is something that has literally happened before, but we should not take that too literally to mean that “they” were all beaten previously by their collective spouse and have since learned a valuable “lesson” — instead, this could happen, they know that it could, and therefore it did.

    Of course, it’s also not exactly clear to me who “they” submit to in this process. The government constitutes some other group, analogous to an abusive spouse, which does things to them. The identity of this party is quite mysterious (and violent), for good reason I’m sure. Anyway, it isn’t what they do to themselves, nor is it something we do to ourselves. But happily, it turns out, the “abuse” of something which “they” suffer from by this other thing is the least bad option, thereby justifying it. So it’s no big deal. That’s why the analogy is totally working just as it was violently intended.

  480. says

    We interrupt the ongoing mockery of EnlightementLiberal’s fucking stupid beliefs about violence to showcase an example of what real violence is:
    Irish authorities are searching for the men responsible for brutally beating a lesbian couple

    A young lesbian couple were left bleeding and unconscious after what appears to be violent homophobic attack by two men in Ireland.

    The couple were walking towards a food outlet at approximately 2am when the two men began “firing homophobic slurs” at the couple.

    “We had literally left our apartment only minutes before when these two grown men started shouting abuse at us about being lesbians,” Tipperary-born Roisin said.

    “Initially we shouted back as we are used to this kind of abuse – but then they walked back towards us and started shoving us roughly.”

    The victims described the men as being in their early to mid-20s and said they were “well-dressed, as if coming back from a night out”.

    “Suddenly, the men pushed us to the ground. They were stepping on our chests, they kneed and kicked us,” the student said.

    The Independent adds:

    The men appeared to leave after approximately ten minutes – after taking the girls’ hats – but one returned “which was the worst part” of the assault, according to Ms Prendergast.
    “We thought it was over. Then one guy came back, threw Ciara against a shop window and ripped up her hat in front of her,” she said.

    When the unprovoked vicious attack was finally over, Ms Murphy lay unconscious on the street following a knock to her head, while Ms Prendergast had been beaten and was in shock beside her.

    Two passers-by came upon the young women some time later and immediately alerted the emergency services and the gardai, who responded to the scene.

    Gardai have launched an investigation into the incident – but they say that the CCTV footage on the street of the incident is of too poor quality to be used for identification purposes.

    The two women said they are overwhelmed with the support they have received on social media following the attack.

    “So far we have no information as to who the two men are. But we have been inundated with messages of support,” said Ms Prendergast.

    I think it’s safe to say that EL would think this is violence. Moreover, I think it’s safe to say that EL opposes anti-LGBT bigotry.
    These women were not the victims of taxation.
    They weren’t the victims of incarceration.
    They weren’t the victims of vaccination.
    They weren’t the victims of a kidnapping.

    They were the victims of anti-LGBT violence. How do I know this? Because words mean things. Violence means something. It means something specific. It does not mean taxation. It does not mean incarceration. It does not mean vaccination. It does not mean kidnapping.
    Redefining the word violence so broadly that it covers taxes, kidnapping or vaccination dilutes the term so much that it is meaningless. How then are we to describe what happened to these women? How do we work towards a world with less anti-LGBT violence if the word violence means just about anything?

    Hell, how do we address and work to reduce violence in the world if violence can mean virtually anything?

  481. Acolyte of Sagan says

    Saad, re your #444, and your idea about having children being violence; I think you may be onto something important!
    Childbirth is generally a traumatic time for the woman, so by the very act of being born the baby has caused violence to the woman. Furthermore, from conception onwards the developing foetus causes all manner of discomforts and pain, so by merely developing in the womb the foetus is committing violence.

    Therefore, Saad, I do believe that you have confirmed the concept of Original Sin.

  482. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Okay, I get your point and your joke, and this isn’t your fault, Acolyte of Sagan, this is just to share:

    after I finished reading your post I suddenly thought of a very particular caller to the Atheist Experience and instantly got revoltingly sick. Ugh. Original sin sucks the big apple.

    Almost by definition.

  483. Acolyte of Sagan says

    My apologies, Crip Dyke. I don’t like stirring bad memories for people, however unintentionally.

  484. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    You’re very kind, Acolyte of Sagan. I’m fine, it was a passing thing, if you’re concerned.

  485. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Skimming along.

    Unless and until EL states a tax rate or tax scheme with which EL is comfortable, the only reasonable conclusion is that EL wants taxes significantly lower than they are, but significantly above the libertarian ideal … which is zero.

    Many times now, I have specifically called for heavy progressive death taxes and heavy progressive income taxes for the expressed purpose of wealth redistribution, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    Almost as frequently, I have called for welfare, funding for infrastructure, including education, and perhaps even a guaranteed minimum income scheme.

    Again, this is just an example of the fundamental dishonesty from Crip Dyke.

    As for particulars, a 90% death tax rate for the filthy rich sounds like a good start. I’d have to talk to real economists etc., but I suspect a better answer is closer to 99% death tax rate for billionaires and 90% income tax rate for billionaires. No one person should be that rich. Amounts of money that large should not be handed down in dynastic lines – it becomes a kind of aristocracy. Money is power, and no one person should be that powerful. (Governments, and elected leaders and representatives, are a separate discussion.)

  486. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Got a short response sitting in moderation for Crip Dyke. (I had too many href links to my own posts which demonstrating the falsity of Crip Dyke’s general statements about my position.)

    Oh, let me get this too.

    @Gregwills

    By your current usage giving a child a hard candy is violence. After all we do know that some children choke on hard candies and some of those children die. Hell, feeding a child is violence since some small percentage of children have allergic reactions or choke causing them to die. We know this ahead of time and yet we still feed our children, doing them violence on a daily basis.

    Did you mean for that to be a reductio ad absurdum? I’m the one trying to embrace an internally consistent application of the word “violence”. I still don’t know how most people in the thread are using the word.

    Again, I still think that when one has the statistics in front of oneself that one can be virtually guaranteed that some children will die – be killed – from enacting a certain plan which would not die without the plan, I do not understand how you say enacting the plan is not-violence – except by appealing to some completely ad-hoc (and thus intellectually dishonest) excuse. (Again unless you want to include justification as a criteria in the definition of “violence”. That would solve the problem. However, most people expressly deny that option.)

    Thus far, it still appears to me that most people here say violence is violence, except when it’s justified enough, or rare enough, or hidden by enough good intentions, and then it’s not violence. When someone else accused me of Humpty Dumpty reasoning,
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    that’s exactly what I see from all of you. Violence is violence when you choose it to be violence, and it’s not violence when you choose for it to be not violence – neither more nor less.

  487. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I still think that when one has the statistics in front of oneself that one can be virtually guaranteed that some children will die – be killed – from enacting a certain plan which would not die without the plan,

    Fuck, EL, are you completely daft. **you don’t have those statistics**. No one does.

    We know many fewer children would die with the vaccine. We known some people will die in the course of the vaccination program.

    Please cite the study that shows that any one child that died in the course of any one vaccination campaign would have lived without the vaccination campaign in a world where they would have encountered the actual disease instead.

    What precise study would you need to do to say that this child who died during vaccination would have lived in a world without vaccination? How do yo know that child wouldn’t be one of the dramatically increased numbers of victims of the disease otherwise vaccinated against?

    You don’t.

    So when you describe these kids – these kids at the center of a tragedy for themselves and their families – and talk about them as if they would have been the lucky few who made it through the actual horrible disease now eradicated…

    …aren’t you doing the most gross disservice to the families of those kids? The only mercy at all is that at least the kids who actually died aren’t hearing your bullshit about how they would have been the lucky ones.

    ****You can’t know that even ONE of the kids who die during vaccination would avoid or survive the disease in a world without vaccines.****

    Why are you writing shit that states that the kids at the center of these tragedies, and I fucking quote:

    would not die without the plan

    What kind of sick contempt do you have for others suffering that you would write that those kids

    would not die without the plan

    when you also clearly know that many more people would die without the plan AND you have no way of knowing whether or not those kids would be among the sick/dead or the blissfully lucky.

    Why do you write shit like this that you must know to be false?

  488. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Preview, for those interested. The EnlightenmentLiberal comment caught in the spam trap that “refutes” me? [Spoiler, it doesn’t “refute” me, since I said “here’s my guess” and that was, in fact, my guess …but it does prove that I got something very, very wrong]

    My comment under discussion is #461:
    I said:

    Unless and until EL states a tax rate or tax scheme with which EL is comfortable, the only reasonable conclusion is that EL wants taxes significantly lower than they are, but significantly above the libertarian ideal … which is zero.

    I said this on the basis that EL said we should reduce taxes to reduce violence. It’s hard to conclude from these statements that he wants to increase taxes. NONETHELESS, I said (and EL didn’t quote) in the same comment, immediately following the above with no gaps:

    My best guess, and this is a wild guess, based on those parameters is something between 10% and 33% as a top marginal income tax rate, with similar reductions (or greater, since they are poorer) for other tax payers.

    I really don’t have any data save the existence and amount of the current top marginal tax rate in the US (best guess it hat EL is USA based, but that isn’t certain either) and the unreasonable “starve the beast” taxation philosophy of US libertarians.

    So I was completely honest with my readers: I made clear that what I was trying to do was to predict a tax rate that would fit EL’s previous statements, and thus be relatively likely to bear some resemblance to an actual tax rate EL might support. I said here’s my guess, here’s my reasons, and it’s a wild guess [said so that people would understand that the likelihood of my guess being accurate is quite low].

    Moreover, I did this to DEFEND EL against charges of libertarianism and against charges that EL wanted to reduce taxes to zero.

    It turns out I erred in the specific tax rates EL would choose [quoting from EL’s forthcoming comment]:

    As for particulars, a 90% death tax rate for the filthy rich sounds like a good start. I’d have to talk to real economists etc., but I suspect a better answer is closer to 99% death tax rate for billionaires and 90% income tax rate for billionaires. No one person should be that rich.

    yes, I failed to predict a top marginal income tax rate by a long way. But also? The current top marginal income tax rate kicks in @ a few hundred thousand dollars per year, and has nothing to do with your total wealth. An income tax “for billionaires” doesn’t tell us when this tax kicks in – is this a wealth/property tax or a true income tax, but where the indexing accounts for wealth? USD $1 million/ year won’t make you a billionaire any time soon, but conceivably a billionaire could have an actual income that low. So does this kick in at USD $100 million per year? We don’t know.

    What we do know is that this has nothing to do with the majority of payers of the top marginal rate. Even taking only those folks who pay top marginal rate on at least some of their income, billionaires are a vanishingly small minority. So what would be the top marginal rate on those other folks? We don’t know. It might be as low as I cited, it might be much higher than I cited.

    Either way, I’m not “refuted”. Even EL says those previous comments:

    called for heavy progressive death taxes and heavy progressive income taxes

    The problem is “heavy” isn’t a percentage. it doesn’t specifically tell us if the current rates are considered “heavy…, but not-super-heavy, and certainly not heavy enough where they fail the community by not increasing even high than the current top marginal rate on billionaires”

    I tried to guess a percentage. i defended EL gainst the charge he wanted to eliminate taxes. But in the process of defending EL, I failed to pick out of the hat the exact percentage top marginal rate EL would choose for income taxes.

    In the interest of honesty and accountability, I leave it to my readers to decide how hard my credibility should be hit.

    ================================
    Please do, if you’ve read this comment, read the entirety of EL’s comment when it is available. To do otherwise would be unfair. EL shouldn’t have to rely on my reproductions of EL’s words to make EL’s case.

  489. says

    Hmm, EL I think in your new post the “violence” from statistics thing kinda looks like saying the following:

    You are a theist because you know there is a small nonzero probability of a god existing.

    You are violent because you know there is a small nonzero probability of the plan killing someone.

    But I think it’s more correct to call something violent that was both: 1) done with the killing as the intended outcome and 2) actually had that outcome. Otherwise: if 2 but not 1) we call it an accident, and sometimes criminal negligence if it was bad enough, and if 1 but not 2) it would be attempted violence or something.

    Easy when considering “killing”. Now you all can resume debating whether it applies to imprisonment or whatever.

    I also think that the word “violence” comes in shades of gray (like the difference between a mound and not a mound, a classic philosophical word paradox) and I think at some point it’s ok to say “that’s not really violence”. Various parts of it can have shades, including harmful outcome, intent, and possibly others.

  490. anteprepro says

    Enlightenment Liberal continues to amaze. They continue to not just double down, but also dip their head into brand new frontiers in which to be asinine. Vaccination is also violence now. Fantastic. And I don’t believe I have noticed any retraction of the dismissal of the APA, on the basis of denying a fact that, in actuality, was supported by scientific evidence, contrary to EL’s understanding, as supported exclusively by EL’s Infinite Font of Wisdom That Requires No Cited Sources.

    Bets on whether we can get EL to say something asinine about creationism/evolution, and how long it will take to happen? I bet midway through Next Thunderdome at the latest. Two grains of the finest sand to the winner.

  491. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @brianpansky:

    1) done with the killing as the intended outcome and 2) actually had that outcome. Otherwise: if 2 but not 1) we call it an accident, and sometimes criminal negligence if it was bad enough, and if 1 but not 2) it would be attempted violence or something.

    What? OUTRAGEOUS! What kind of goalpost-switching, ad hoc defining do you think is acceptable around here?

    Why, requiring a bad outcome to be the intended outcome (or to be closely related to the intended outcome, e.g. getting shot in the shoulder and requiring surgery when the intent of the shooter was to kill), that’s so outrageously bizarre a view that believe it or not it actually resembles the Oxford English Dictionary’s primary definition:

    Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

    or, well, the Merriam-Webster primary definition:

    exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

    or, the primary definition of The Free Dictionary:

    Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury

    or, shit, I guess you could use Google’s primary definition:

    behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

    But the first synonym for Google is “brutality”, so they may be biased.

    Also? They may be paying Oxford to reproduce the Oxford definitions, since there definitions include large patches of identical text (though they clearly aren’t using **only** Oxford, since there are some differences in some definitions).

    In any case, the point is, brianpansky, that you are clearly using a fucked up definition of violence if you’re going to side with Oxford, Merriam-Webster, The Free Dictionary, and Google against EnlightmentLiberal.

    You’ve only got those 4 sources? What kind of ignoramus relies on those 4 sources?

  492. consciousness razor says

    What kind of goalpost-switching, ad hoc defining do you think is acceptable around here?

    The violent kind, which is self-inflicted, does the least harm among all possible alternatives, and may not even happen. You know, just what ordinary people usually mean when they say “violence.”

  493. Grewgills says

    @EL #485
    I’m taking that as a yes that in your schema feeding children is violence as is sending them to walk to school or the store or sending them to take a bath. Am I mistaken that that is your position?

  495. says

    I ran out of coffee this morning. If that’s not violence I don’t know what is.

    Tony
    *putting on a very big snark head*
    Now, this thing that happened in Ireland you linked to?
    You and the media and everybody got it wrong. Those men were preventing those two young women from being assaulted by the government. They were out getting something to eat for which they would have had to pay taxes. Therefore viciously beating them up was more or less equivalent of pushing you out of the way of an oncoming car.

    *drops snark head in disgust*

    +++
    Now, going back to the violence inflicted on children by all kinds of normal behaviour.
    Apparently doing anything that might hurt the child with the smallest possible probability is violence. But, deprivation is also part of the definition of violence (that’s even a sensible addition IMO). Therefore not doing anything and therefore depriving the child is violence as well. Which nicely fits with EL’s opinion that parents are violent towards their children because there is no actual way not to be violent. Which means that violence has lost its meaning.
    “I had a violent upbringing” “Yeah, me, too” “I was regularly beaten for things like failing to say sir and had to sleep in the basement on the concrete floor. What did your parents do?” “They told me to brush my teeth at night, read me a bedtime story, carried me to bed and kissed me goodnight”

  496. Nick Gotts says

    Again, I still think that when one has the statistics in front of oneself that one can be virtually guaranteed that some children will die – be killed – from enacting a certain plan which would not die without the plan, I do not understand how you say enacting the plan is not-violence – except by appealing to some completely ad-hoc (and thus intellectually dishonest) excuse. – Enlightenment Liberal@485

    Like the “excuse” that it’s not violence. Jesus wept, EL, how did you get to be quite so stupid? Natural language terms, such as “violence”, very rarely have absolute, watertight definitions or extensions. They have core prototypes or examples, like the case Tony! describes@480 in the case of violence. They have clear counterexamples – like a consensual hug in the case of violence. Then they have a penumbra of cases which resemble the core cases in some ways, and not in others. Where (if at all) one chooses to draw the line is usually context-dependent, may be a matter of convenience, and may be a matter of ideological dispute (as when libertarians want to define taxation as violence). If you weren’t so stupid, the one being intellectually dishonest here would be you – for insisting that everyone agree to your preferred use of the word, which is remote from normal usage.

  497. bassmike says

    My child lives in my house which has a remote chance of being hit by a meteorite/aircraft/bulldozer. Therefore I am being violent to my child while she sleeps!

  498. Saad says

    I think it’s time we revise that famous maxim about the two things certain in life.

    We live in a grimmer world than we thought.

  500. Okidemia says

    I don’t know about you, but the last hundred comments have just been m.o.-mocking a singleone.

    For the sake of not letting someone alone in TD, I declare that I’ll be defending their position, so that they are two of themus.

    If I don’t understand the position defended and deviate from it, please tell me, so that I can try another shop. (Let’s say I can use the joket three times).

    Ready? Glow!