Any punishments are applied by threat of violence. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not sure that distinguishing between threat of violence and applied violence makes you against any form of violence.
Any punishments are applied by threat of violence. For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not sure that distinguishing between threat of violence and applied violence makes you against any form of violence.
frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
I’m not for violence or threatening violence. I am for saying openly that crimes committed by leaders should be investigated and prosecuted in a court of law, should there be enough tangible evidence to pursue a case.
I think in many cases right now there’s enough visible evidence for a case to be built quickly, but as a member of the public that’s not my job to weigh that information.
TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 14 hours ago
What is the goal of prosecuting the crimes? To put people in prison. Why do people go to prison? Not because someone says so. Because the group sending you to prison can apply violence to you. All governing is through inherent threat of violence. We as a society agree when that’s appropriate. (Or, that’s how it should work. Right now, in the US, money decides.)
frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
People are sent to prison not strictly for reasons of violence, but because we as a society has designated certain crimes to have been painful either physically or materially to those that experienced them.
A hacker or a fraud may not be inflicting physical violence, but that doesn’t mean they are harmless.
Now what you define as violence can change things a bit, but I personally would define it as a physical or a threat of something physical.
TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 13 hours ago
I’m not saying that crimes are violence - I’m saying that publishing crimes can only happen because the state threatens violence.