Also, is it ok to call for violence if your next tweet says that you were joking? I do not think there is not agreement on what a violent extremist is.
Survivors always universally agree violence isn't the answer. I'm not saying literally 100% of people are opposed to violence. Will Smith just ruined his reputation and ended his career with violence.
> Because I think there are more and more people who think it is the answer. I would guess you're saying the vast majority rather than all (Sorry if this sounds pedantic but it's not meant to be).
The federal government has many responsibilities but 2 of the fundamental ones.
1. Military and police to prevent all violence. Government gets full monopoly over violence.
2. Borders to define where violence isn't allowed.
Fundamentally the government who represents everyone is the 'all'. Obviously it's more complicated than that because violence is allowed in some examples. Boxing -> MMA for example, but my understanding is that it's well regulated.
Even more complicated yet, there will always be a portion of every society who wants to kill. It's an evolutionary thing that Joe Rogan likes to call Chimp Brain. For whatever reason they are wired to the point they need to kill. Imagine the helicopter scene from full metal jacket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI
Those people exist. Even in Ukraine right now. There are Russian soldiers who are doing this. Everyone is the enemy and needs to be killed. Stupid ukraine for whatever they did to force me to be there. I'm going to punish ukrainians equally, they all need dying.
These people are going to push toward violence. You have to proactive to avoid this.
>Also, is it ok to call for violence if your next tweet says that you were joking? I do not think there is not agreement on what a violent extremist is.
Great question, and what is the 'correct' solution? I dont care about the next tweet but perhaps you are banned until you delete the tweet? Commonly that's what twitter already does.
Unfortunately there is a disagreement over calls for violence. It's difficult to find examples of calls for violence from the right wing. Obviously that is well censored. Yet there's lots of examples from the left-wing that go unpunished. The entire 'punch a nazi' thing from the left is insidious and bad.
Here is a verified checkmark on the left calling for violence as an example: https://twitter.com/JeffGrubb/status/1086707229137485825
The context is that this is an off-the-cuff comment during the early part of the Maga kid Nick sandman story. The truth hadn't come out yet. That is to say that nick sandman was completely innocent and now rich after multiple settlements by media who smeared him. Obviously a ton more verified checkmarks called for violence toward the maga kid. Lets not even mention the number of non-checkmarks who never had their call to violence ever censored.
That maga hat represented much more than the situation really did.
Basically what he just said is that he won't be allowing violence or calls to violence.
When you boil down or remove the perjorativeness of 'extremism'. You can have a borderline extreme opinion on abortion. Either on right the right side that no abortion should be allowed or on the left side of 'abortion should be allowed even after birth' Neither of these are extremist positions though.
Extremism comes down to not being willing to entertain the other side and the requirement of using violence to solve the political divide. Those are far extreme positions.
I think we can all agree that violence isn't the answer and if some violent extremist from either side has been censored. Nobody will actually care.