zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.

If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.

>>bigstr+XD
I understand the thrust of your comment, but why is "this person is a threat to democracy" an apocalyptic statement, but "... or the cycle is going to destroy our society" not? Seems like you're being rather selective in what's considered apocalyptic statements and what's not.

There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.

>>yibg+6K
> This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.

The First Amendment is about stopping the government from stopping you from saying the things you want to say. The First Amendment says nothing about social norms. People in this thread are asking for people to tone down the rhetoric, something that seems eminently reasonable. Think of it this way: if you want to insist that so and so are "a threat to democracy", what's to stop them from similarly inciting violence towards you? Generalized violence would not be good for anyone, including those who might currently feel safe from it.

The golden rule is always in effect.

>>crypto+bs1
My core objection is the claim that saying so and so is "a threat to democracy" is inciting violence. Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? One doesn't seem any more extreme than the other to me.

>>yibg+Sy1
To be fair, you can incite violence and that speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as there is no risk of imminent violence.

So, yes, your speech saying so and so is a "threat to democracy" is protected speech, but it is in fact inciting violence.

> Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not?

The quote was:

| We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.

Indeed that is very much not incitement to violence but actually incitement to de-escalation. The "or the cycle is going to..." part is not specifically a threat against any one person, unlike the "so and so is a threat to democracy".

How can you not see this?

>>crypto+JN1
"What you're doing is threatening our democracy, you have to stop" vs "What you're doing is going to destroy our society, you have to stop". What's the difference between those in terms of inciting violence?