Again, please refrain from sealioning. Simply rephrasing your arguments in ways that don't appear indistinguishable from it. If you keep doing it, I will have to assume you're doing it on purpose an in bad faith. It's not a good debate tactic in a conversation about "rational debate" and its effects on violence. Sealioning is exactly one of the tactics used in the topic we're discussing. You must appreciate the irony.
In addition to all of this, we have to agree that "reduction of harm" is a valid guiding principle to hold above all others. This is fundamentally consequentialist (and valid as such). My thesis though is that "freedom" itself has deontological value, even if it causes harm. Deontologists and consequentialists have a notoriously hard time seeing eye to eye.
I'm not at all trying to derail the conversation, but it just doesn't seem all that clear-cut to me.
I'm so sorry that you came up with the idea that I need to have a test and then continue to ask me what it would be. I hope you can simply lay this to rest.
The parent reply that started this discussion says they believe it is wrong to suppress speech that is not a call to violence. You responded saying that this logic doesn't work if speech that is non-violent can still lead to violence, with the insinuation being that you are okay banning speech that falls into this category of "not violent, but leads to violence." Which is a perfectly valid point, and I believe a strong argument!
thegrimmest has then attempted to point out that it can be extremely difficult to pinpoint what speech falls into this category, and stated that these sorts of bans can be inappropriately used as tools of oppression by authoritarian governments. He asks how you feel this sort of ban could be properly implemented, given these potential problems. This is a very on-topic response; you appear to be proposing that the government expand its abilities to censor speech, and thegrimmest is asking how we could ensure the government doesn't abuse this power if it is implemented. Given the current state of the world, and the authoritarian trends rearing their head in dozens of countries, this criticism is valid, on-topic, and very far from sealioning.
Rather than try to address his concerns by proposing ways this sort of ban could be thoughtfully and morally implemented, you immediately chose to accuse him of sealioning, which is a form of trolling and a pretty serious accusation. He gamely attempted to appease you by rephrasing his wording, only for you to become snarky, smug, and accuse him of repeatedly pestering you with questions--when you had directly asked him multiple times to please rephrase his questions!
As someone who has experienced sealioning, and finds it quite infuriating, I am genuinely baffled how you can see this interaction as thegrimmest sealioning. I think you may need to take a moment to re-read the HackerNews code of conduct and remember that engaging in good faith is a must.
If you don't wish to engage with thegrimmest's criticisms, that is 100% okay. You can always say, "I support banning speech in this category, and I'm not interested in discussing the possible ways a government could abuse this power." But you cannot pretend that thegrimmest is somehow morally at fault for wishing to discuss government abuse, because presenting these sorts of on-topic and civil criticisms is exactly what these forums are for.
You're a very intelligent person, and I think you raise some great points. I almost always enjoy reading your comments and listening to your insights. But they get lost when you engage like this. I see from your previous comments that this isn't the first time this has happened; other commenters have complained of you being rigid and accusatory. It's probably worth taking a step back and examining why this is a recurring theme in your interactions on here.
It's an inevitable consequence of power (read: to do harm) being distributed rather than concentrated. With distributed power you're at the mercy of group dynamics and trends. However the risks of concentrated power have borne out to be much more severe.
> rephrase it so that it doesn't come across [as sealioning]
I'm genuinely mystified as to what distinguishes "well-intentioned" use of authority to control people from what we see as obviously tyrannical. What principle would you use to distinguish between the kind of control over speech exercised by the UK and what is commonplace in China? Or are you willing to concede that these are different degrees of the same thing? I'm simply arguing that this "thing" (the use of authority to limit speech) should be avoided at all costs in a free society.