Laws are enforced by violence. If you disobey, and refuse to pay fines eventually someone will break your door down and drag you out in handcuffs

▲

skrebbel 5 days ago | parent [-]

This implies you can call any law you don't like "violent". That's ridiculous.

▲

cess11 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, it's not. One important feature of the modern state is that it makes a claim to a monopoly on violence and institutionally back up its enforcement of its laws with this threat of violence.

▲

skrebbel 5 days ago | parent [-]

Come on, words have meaning. You can’t possibly claim that you honestly, truly believe that any law you don’t like is violent because in the end the state holds a monopoly on violence. That’s distorting the meaning of the word “violent” so far it becomes meaningless, and I shiver at the thought of a society where everybody who does something that waaaay down the line could somehow result in physical violence can be deemed a “terrorist”. It’s an absurd argument to make, and I’m not entirely sure why y’all are so enthusiastically for it. Don’t you see that this doesn’t only apply to laws you don’t like? Other people can call laws you do like “state terrorism” just as easily once you go down this path.

This reflex to argue against bad ideas using bad faith attempts to totally distort reality (in this case, calling excessive state surveillance “terrorism”) has got to stop. Do you really believe that by so transparently trying to gaslight people, your case gets stronger?

Stop making up bullshit terms and argue these laws on their own merits, or lack thereof. There’s plenty wrong with Chat Control without this kind of nonsense. It’s a terrible proposal. It’s not terrorism.

▲

cess11 4 days ago | parent [-]

There are no such laws that I 'do like'.

If you want to make the claim that there are laws that aren't backed up by state violence, in this case in Germany or elsewhere in the EU, name them and show that it is the case.

	▲	skrebbel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I make no such case, you’re right. All laws are backed up by state violence. But that doesn’t mean you can call every law “violent”, or random government actions “terrorism”. It’s like calling a father who tells his kid to help with the dishes “violent” because waay down the line in the most pathological broken situation imaginable the authority a parent wields over their child is backed up by violence and the ability to withhold basic necessities. It’s ridiculous, he didn’t beat his kid up, he said “come help do the dishes”. You’re doing that, but with the state. It removes all nuance. Don’t do that, it hurts your argument. I mean seriously your point boils down to “Chat Control is a law, and laws are backed by violence, and therefore it’s terrorism”. That means “don’t park on the sidewalk” is also terrorism! Why am I even arguing this? Gaah I so hope you’re just trolling me.