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.

▲

cryptonector 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

yibg 5 days ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

cryptonector 5 days ago | parent [-]

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?

	▲	ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Likewise, raising awareness of threats to our democracy implicitly and explicitly appeals to the threats to stop threatening democracy. It is not incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is what I see when the president explicitly tells his supporters to beat up his opponents, which he does. Unfortunately, that is one of the smallest incitements to violence we've seen from the right over the years.
	▲	yibg 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"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?

▲

j-krieger 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If your democracy is so weak that it can be harmed by some dude openly debating on a collage campus, maybe it wasn‘t an ideal system to begin with.