Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 1342

Author Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée  (Read 1570798 times)

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1305 on: April 09, 2015, 10:25:10 am »

Why not "attack" then? It doesn't imply violence, but it still captures the nature of the action. Some may say that "economic attack" is a loaded term, but it's no more loaded than any other term that might find its way into political discourse. That it has a fairly narrow meaning puts it head and shoulders above crowd favorites like Nazi and socialism.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 10:27:46 am by Baffler »
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1306 on: April 09, 2015, 11:24:35 am »

"Attack" tends to imply an isolated nature, though. Even "attacks" points more to a series of discrete, mostly unconnected, events when you're often dealing with a very coherent and directed campaign of action. May be the better term for individual instances, but I'd call it too narrow to really describe the sort of thing we're talking about. Abuse may be closer, but I'd still say that doesn't quite fit. Implies a degree of closeness between actors you don't always have with violence.

Not sure english really has an entirely apt term for it, really. "Violence" is just closer than about any other word we have for distilling the nature of the act in question. Directed and intentional harm, backed by some form of force.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1307 on: April 09, 2015, 11:45:40 am »

.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 06:32:47 pm by penguinofhonor »
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1308 on: April 09, 2015, 12:05:54 pm »

In my opinion, any action which by intention or willful negligence results in severe bodily harm, reduction in quality of life, or death to another person should be known as violence.  Economic action can definitely count.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Rose

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Elf
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1309 on: April 09, 2015, 01:33:40 pm »

What about string instruments?
Logged

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1310 on: April 09, 2015, 01:49:35 pm »

In my opinion, any action which by intention or willful negligence results in severe bodily harm, reduction in quality of life, or death to another person should be known as violence.  Economic action can definitely count.

By that definition not buying a bar of chocolate from your local shop could be interpreted as an act of violence, you are denying the shop's owner money which may impact their quality of life.

Hell, that definition even means that every time Asda lowers it's prices it's engaging in violence against the owner's of Tesco and Sainsbury's.

Not to mention that it implies that people boycotting a company for having terrible ethical or production standards is equivalent to them all stabbing the person who owns the company.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Angle

  • Bay Watcher
  • 39 Indigo Spear Questions the Poor
    • View Profile
    • Agora Forum Demo!
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1311 on: April 09, 2015, 02:25:23 pm »

Equivalent? No. Vaguely similar? Sure. I'd equate it more to a slap in the face - Which the company might well deserve.
Logged

Agora: open-source platform to facilitate complicated discussions between large numbers of people. Now with test site!

The Temple of the Elements: Quirky Dungeon Crawler

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1312 on: April 09, 2015, 06:11:11 pm »

By that definition not buying a bar of chocolate from your local shop could be interpreted as an act of violence, you are denying the shop's owner money which may impact their quality of life.

No, because your individual purchasing decision, so long as it's not part of a collective agreement with a large number of other people, is not responsible for the financial health of a business.  This is not a matter of intention or willful negligence on your part.  The shop owner should not staking his livelihood on whether or not you buy a candy bar.

Hell, that definition even means that every time Asda lowers it's prices it's engaging in violence against the owner's of Tesco and Sainsbury's.

Debatable.  This one could be subject to a lot of exploration.

Not to mention that it implies that people boycotting a company for having terrible ethical or production standards is equivalent to them all stabbing the person who owns the company.

Self-defense.  Plus, the owner of the company isn't likely to be harmed nearly as much as the people he was harming with his business practices.  He can just cut his losses and retire early.


I just don't see the difference between one action or another that directly results in harm to another person, when done intentionally, for the purpose of defining violence.  For example, ordering business practices that pollute the environment because it's more profitable for your business is morally equivalent to shoving poison down someone's throat with one hand and taking their wallet with the other.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1313 on: April 09, 2015, 06:55:30 pm »

No, because your individual purchasing decision, so long as it's not part of a collective agreement with a large number of other people, is not responsible for the financial health of a business.  This is not a matter of intention or willful negligence on your part.  The shop owner should not staking his livelihood on whether or not you buy a candy bar.

Why should scale matter when deciding if something is a violent act? If punching someone is a violent act and so is a crowd doing so then why is a large boycott violent but an individuals purchasing choices aren't?

In addition why should the degree of harm matter significantly? A large number of people live on a knife's edge when it comes to money and I know a few store owners who are often a couple of missed sales away from not being able to pay their bills.

Quote
Debatable.  This one could be subject to a lot of exploration.

Except exploring that subject would lead to the possible redefinition of corporate competition as violence. Which would then mean the only non-violent form of corporation would be those that have a monopoly.

Quote
Self-defense.  Plus, the owner of the company isn't likely to be harmed nearly as much as the people he was harming with his business practices.  He can just cut his losses and retire early.

Bad ethics or production standards do not merit a self defence argument. The early runs of the X-Box 360 had poor standards on the soldering but I doubt you could justify any argument that the people in charge of that should be treated as if they had physically assaulted someone.

Quote
I just don't see the difference between one action or another that directly results in harm to another person, when done intentionally, for the purpose of defining violence.  For example, ordering business practices that pollute the environment because it's more profitable for your business is morally equivalent to shoving poison down someone's throat with one hand and taking their wallet with the other.

Because violence refers to acts of physical assault, it does not refer to any act that causes harm to someone. The proper terms for causing someone harm vary based on the method of harming them. Screaming insults at someone is not referred to as violence, it is verbal assault, it can be harmful to a person emotionally and psychologically, but that doesn't make it violent.

If a company is polluting the environment the proper description of what they are doing is just that; polluting. The word violence carries additional connotations that aren't relevant to any discussion of how to treat polluters and is detrimental to attempts to have the issue dealt with appropriately.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1314 on: April 09, 2015, 07:42:09 pm »

Why should scale matter when deciding if something is a violent act? If punching someone is a violent act and so is a crowd doing so then why is a large boycott violent but an individuals purchasing choices aren't?

In addition why should the degree of harm matter significantly? A large number of people live on a knife's edge when it comes to money and I know a few store owners who are often a couple of missed sales away from not being able to pay their bills.

It's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of intent and responsibility.  You are not individually responsible for ensuring another person's livelihood, but you are responsible for actions you take that knowingly cause detriment to it. 

Clear distinction:  Not taking an action that would benefit someone else is not the same as taking an action that harms someone else.

Except exploring that subject would lead to the possible redefinition of corporate competition as violence. Which would then mean the only non-violent form of corporation would be those that have a monopoly.

It's a deep rabbit hole, and one of many reasons I don't like capitalism.  It encourages people to do harm to each other.  It rewards the benefit of one at the cost of another.  That's the nature of being forced to compete for livelihood.  I didn't want to explore this, because I knew it would lead into a much larger tangent.

Bad ethics or production standards do not merit a self defence argument. The early runs of the X-Box 360 had poor standards on the soldering but I doubt you could justify any argument that the people in charge of that should be treated as if they had physically assaulted someone.

That was a mistake in engineering.  Maybe a result of some carelessness.  Even if it did result in a couple house fires, I'm sure nobody expected this design flaw to result in actual harm to anyone.  Likewise, causing someone to fall off a cliff by accidentally bumping into them wouldn't be considered violence.  It's called a mistake.

Because violence refers to acts of physical assault, it does not refer to any act that causes harm to someone. The proper terms for causing someone harm vary based on the method of harming them. Screaming insults at someone is not referred to as violence, it is verbal assault, it can be harmful to a person emotionally and psychologically, but that doesn't make it violent.

If a company is polluting the environment the proper description of what they are doing is just that; polluting. The word violence carries additional connotations that aren't relevant to any discussion of how to treat polluters and is detrimental to attempts to have the issue dealt with appropriately.

I understand the connotation as being harm willfully caused by one person to another.  Violence is a blanket term that applies to a broad range of actions, so trying to narrow it in that fashion doesn't work.  "The proper description of punching is just that; punching". 

If somebody paid me to fill your house with nerve gas, would you consider that an act of violence?  Most people would.  So why isn't it violence if I refuse to put a filter on a factory chimney in order to make more money, knowing this will contribute to a higher rate of deadly lung cancer in the community?  The intent and consequence is the same both ways.  Kill people; receive money.

If direct physical assault and pollution both result in death due to willful actions, then using language that recognizes these like consequences is conducive to making sure they're dealt with appropriately.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 07:45:29 pm by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1315 on: April 09, 2015, 08:02:32 pm »

Quote
I understand the connotation as being harm willfully caused by one person to another.  Violence is a blanket term that applies to a broad range of actions, so trying to narrow it in that fashion doesn't work.  "The proper description of punching is just that; punching". 

If somebody paid me to fill your house with nerve gas, would you consider that an act of violence?  Most people would.  So why isn't it violence if I refuse to put a filter on a factory chimney in order to make more money, knowing this will contribute to a higher rate of deadly lung cancer in the community?  The intent and consequence is the same both ways.  Kill people; receive money.

If direct physical assault and pollution both result in death due to willful actions, then using language that recognizes these like consequences is conducive to making sure they're dealt with appropriately.

I wouldn't consider filling a house with nerve gas to be violent, I'd consider it to be either poisoning or assassination, and a type of nonviolent attempted murder, or actual murder if it succeeded in killing someone. The chimney one I'd label as polluting, harmful negligence and reckless endangerment of human life. I'm sure there's more stuff I could call it, but violence isn't one of them.

The biggest issue with redefining violent as any action that deliberately harms another is that it would allow for the treatment of pretty much any and all peaceful protests as if they were riots with far less political backlash.

Consider:

'Police were called in to discuss the placement of a peaceful protest outside the main branch of the royal bank.'

Compare this to:

'Law enforcement were called in to contain a violent protest outside a major bank.'

Very big difference in meaning there, but by your definition the protest was causing harm to the bank they were protesting outside of as well as anyone involved in what they were protesting about, thus making them violent, thus allowing the latter statement to be true but misleading.

EDIT: Other similar issues would arise, but they all boil down to the same point, blurring the lines between different terms, especially when some terms bear associations with criminal/unethical/immoral activity is something that discourages open and proper dialogue between people and enables (and encourages) sensationalist journalism until the public become jaded and indifferent to the terminology.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 08:08:58 pm by Grim Portent »
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1316 on: April 09, 2015, 08:08:38 pm »

I wouldn't consider filling a house with nerve gas to be violent, I'd consider it to be either poisoning or assassination.

... did you just say that assassination isn't necessarily an act of violence?

Consider:

'Police were called in to discuss the placement of a peaceful protest outside the main branch of the royal bank.'

Compare this to:

'Law enforcement were called in to contain a violent protest outside a major bank.'

Very big difference in meaning there, but by your definition the protest was causing harm to the bank they were protesting outside of as well as anyone involved in what they were protesting about, thus making them violent, thus allowing the latter statement to be true but misleading.

If the protest were actually intended to result in real harm to anyone, then they would be right to call it violent.  A peaceful protest, by definition, is not intended to harm anyone.  If the protesters lay siege to the bank until the people inside starved to death or something, then that would absolutely be an act of violence.  Simply gathering in a place to draw attention to something does not result in harm to anyone, so anyone trying to spin it as violence would be incredibly wrong.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1317 on: April 09, 2015, 08:18:29 pm »

I wouldn't consider filling a house with nerve gas to be violent, I'd consider it to be either poisoning or assassination.

... did you just say that assassination isn't necessarily an act of violence?

I did. Assassinations can be nonviolent depending on how they're committed. Saying that just because it involves causing someone's death means it must be violent is like saying all deaths of natural causes must be caused by old age.

Quote
Consider:

'Police were called in to discuss the placement of a peaceful protest outside the main branch of the royal bank.'

Compare this to:

'Law enforcement were called in to contain a violent protest outside a major bank.'

Very big difference in meaning there, but by your definition the protest was causing harm to the bank they were protesting outside of as well as anyone involved in what they were protesting about, thus making them violent, thus allowing the latter statement to be true but misleading.

If the protest were actually intended to result in real harm to anyone, then they would be right to call it violent.  A peaceful protest, by definition, is not intended to harm anyone.  If the protesters lay siege to the bank until the people inside starved to death or something, then that would absolutely be an act of violence.  Simply gathering in a place to draw attention to something does not result in harm to anyone, so anyone trying to spin it as violence would be incredibly wrong.

Most peaceful protests prevent people from engaging in business as they would normally do, which is usually the point as much as drawing attention is, causing a knock-on effect on profit margins. Staging an extended protest outside the main offices of a bank can have a not-insignificant effect on their bottom line for the protest's duration as employees are less likely to show up to work and customers are less likely to want to arrange deals for fear of bad publicity. This is usually intended as a method of motivating the upper management to rectify business practices the protesters dislike. It's essentially blocking part of someone's earnings to try and make a point, which I'd say can be readily called causing them financial harm.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

NullForceOmega

  • Bay Watcher
  • But, really, it's divine. Divinely tiresome.
    • View Profile
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1318 on: April 09, 2015, 09:01:20 pm »

A poisoning is non-violent, a stabbing is violent.  Evicting someone from their apartment if they don't pay rent is non-violent, beating them until they move out is violent.  Violence is willful physical harm caused to anything (you can do violence upon a house, a tree, a human, an ox, a ship, etc. it just has to be physical to be violent).  Random and frankly sensationalist repurposing of words is a very poor pastime.
Logged
Grey morality is for people who wish to avoid retribution for misdeeds.

NullForceOmega is an immortal neanderthal who has been an amnesiac for the past 5000 years.

Angle

  • Bay Watcher
  • 39 Indigo Spear Questions the Poor
    • View Profile
    • Agora Forum Demo!
Re: Bay12 2016 Election Megathread- It Is Terrifying
« Reply #1319 on: April 09, 2015, 09:03:46 pm »

You guys are getting a little too worked up by this. My point was that MLK and Ghandi exerted force of some sort through their boycotting. Call it violent or nonviolent as you please.
Logged

Agora: open-source platform to facilitate complicated discussions between large numbers of people. Now with test site!

The Temple of the Elements: Quirky Dungeon Crawler
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 [88] 89 90 ... 1342