That’s a scary broad definition of “violence” you got there.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not really. A snippet I posted before:

If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.

The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.

It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.

The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.

By your own framing, literally any enforcement of a law is “terrorism”.

So your solution to this proposal of “terrorism” is to actually commit “terrorism”.

That’s a lazy straw man. The difference is proportionality and target. Enforcing a law against individual wrongdoing isn’t the same as redesigning society around mass suspicion and fear. “Chat Control” doesn’t punish a crime - it manufactures a climate where everyone is treated as a potential criminal, and coerced into self-censorship. That’s systemic intimidation, not law enforcement.

You don’t have to enact laws like Chat Control (literally Speech Control, they’re not even pretending to try to hide it) to have tyrannical government.

To have tyrannical government we only have to have governments who want to propose such legislation.

Any reasonable sort of government would be highlighting the absurdity of such ideas and speak out against them.

“Chat Control” is a pejorative name used by the law’s opponents. Its official name is the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse.

Names can be deceptive. The Nazis called their purge of Jewish officials the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service - a title that sounded wholesome and bureaucratic. The most destructive laws rarely advertise what they do; they hide behind words like “protection,” “safety,” or “restoration.” The point isn’t the label, it’s the power it grants.

Is this not affirming the consequent?

Violence for A ends is Terrorism

Intimidation for A ends is terrorism

∴ Intimidation for A ends is violence. <--- does not follow

Does it serve a similar purpose? Sure. Is it a threat of violence? Sure, but words have meaning.

No, that’s a misread. I’m not collapsing “intimidation” into “violence”. I’m pointing out that psychological and coercive violence are legally and medically recognised forms of harm. The distinction you’re making is rhetorical, not substantive. The state can’t redefine violence narrowly to exclude itself while criminal law already accepts non-physical violence as real. The argument is about consistency, not syllogisms.

Get your own words, we’re already using these ones.

Violence is a category of harm.

Definitions matter.

If speech is violence then execution is a suitable punishment.

Stop conflating violence with terms that have their own words, it’s not helpful.

No amount of coercive control will nail you to a cross, or shoot you in the neck in front of your wife and a park full of students, because it disagrees with what you say.

Intimidation by making or implying threats of violence isn’t violence.

The reader assuming aggression in blunt words isn’t violence. Not using someone’s preferred pronouns is not violence.

Violence is violence.

People who want to conflate violence with non-violence want to impose their will on others. It’s a personality trait that lends itself to tyranny. You can’t legislate undesirable behaviour out of existence, but you can lock up those you disagree with, and you will enjoy it. You will say things like “ah well, we got what he deserved”.

Punishing people for things like coercive control does nothing to prevent the harm occurring in the first place, and threats of legal consequences rarely do much, if anything, to deter the unwanted activity.

We’re going to have to be more skilful in our thinking if we want people to Be Good and Live Right. I’m sure I’ve read and listen to people who had something more intelligent to say about how we are to live, but we keep fucking nailing them to crosses or shooting them in the fucking neck.

Yes and then again no - Given the Germans history (Nazi's then decades of the Stasi) you can understand why some of them feel that way.

Even then, i could see how the stasi police state was an act of violence against individual citizens (which i doubt is an argument you should take for granted), but even granting that- this chat control isnt it. You can't call everything you dislike or everything that is wrong nazi, stasi, or an act of violence.

Depends on how you look at it, if you think people have an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on their privacy is a form of violence, not all violence is physical violence.

Ok, so you define violence to include advocating for a law that tramples someone rights. The next person says that advocating for laws is its own inalienable right, so you trampled him. And the whole semantic redefinition snake just eats its own tail.

If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to push for a world where words mean something.

Words do mean something - which is exactly why “violence” already has recognised psychological and coercive forms in law and medicine. Pretending otherwise isn’t defending meaning, it’s narrowing it for comfort. People who’ve lived under regimes of fear understand that harm doesn’t need batons to leave marks. But sure, if the only kind of wound you acknowledge is one that bleeds, then the rest of us must be imagining things.

Most people just means physical violence when they say violence, if you use the word differently you will trick many people into thinking you say something you don't.

“Most people” once thought depression was laziness and marital rape was impossible. Appealing to what most people think isn’t clarity, it’s inertia. Language changes because our understanding of harm does. The fact that many still default to the physical doesn’t make the rest untrue - it just shows how far denial can pass for common sense.

All violence is physical violence and any non-metaphorical attempt to define anything else as really violence is Orwellian.

That would surprise every court that’s convicted someone of coercive control, stalking, or psychological abuse. None involved broken bones, yet all involved measurable harm and loss of agency.

I might include threat of violence in that definition. "Give me your money or I'll shoot you."

But then that immediately opens the definition up to include all laws. "Obey this rule or we will imprison or kill you."

"Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds."

It absolutely is violence. If a partner in a relationship was constantly going through your phone, they'd end up in prison in most countries recognising domestic violence.

>If a partner in a relationship was constantly going through your phone, they'd end up in prison in most countries recognising domestic violence.

that's disproportional

Wouldn't you expect the opposite? This law basically read like what the Nazi's would implement to "legitimately" silence opposition.

This very forum is moderated by a person who openly conflates words and violence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452

All: if you can't respond in a non-violent way, please don't post until you can.

By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer need to express it aggressively.

I never felt irritated nor angry about Charlie’s public execution. Perplexed, definitely not surprised. But this statement from Dan had irritated me.

Words aren’t violence. Speech won’t shoot you in the neck in front of your wife and stream it live.

We have perfectly functioning terms for other concepts, we don’t need to Equality everything. When we do that nothing will mean anything, and we’ll soon find ourselves imprisoning or executing those we disagree with. Oops, too fucking late!

This very forum is moderated by a person who openly conflates words and violence.

Wow, that explains so much insanity from this otherwise excellent forum. "Respond in a non-violent way" is insane!

I read it as:

Dan is a moderator on a forum and his goal is to maintain a level of civil discourse rather than an aggressive style of communication. It's a very specific definition of "violence" for a specific context and perhaps there's room for clearer terminology.

I agree that this is weird, but in dang's defense, "non-violent communication" is a commonplace term, and has its roots in the nonviolent peace movement. Like there's entire books written about it etc. It's a terrible word choice, I agree wholeheartedly, but given how widespread a concept it is at this point I don't think you can blame people who use it for that. It's like, "WhatsApp" is a terrible app name but I don't cringe when my mum says its name.

It's actually a pretty useful tool. I wish it was called "compassionate communication" or something like that though.

Oh wow seems like the guy who invented it hates the term too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Alter...

I mean, eventually if it had become a law it would, I guess, as an ultimate backstop be enforced by violence (like all laws, if you break them persistently and annoyingly enough). But, it wouldn’t be indiscriminate, right?

The problem is that EU laws is above national laws. Thus legally any law can be pushed at EU level, even if it breaks national laws. If such law passes, then it’s on member states to adjust their laws.

That's the EU law position, but national law may not agree. I believe both France and Germany, for instance, consider their national constitution to be above EU law (even if the EU Court of Justice disagrees) - Though in practice the constitution was amended when necessary to avoid any conflict.

By the EU’s own definitions of coercion and harm, an attempt to impose mass surveillance by force over national objections would itself meet the elements of coercive intimidation against a population. If we took those standards seriously, it would trigger the very mechanisms meant to prevent terrorism.

> hey, tell me what are some of the recent laws in Germany that make it a crime to call politicians out on social media

in Germany, calling a politician certain derogatory names or mocking them in a way that is considered a "public insult" (and reasonably likely to impair their ability to do their job) can lead to criminal liability under §188 StGB. The scope includes online social media posts. The trend of enforcement appears to be increasing.

Section 188 of the German Criminal Code "insulting public officials" - This section makes it a crime to insult ("Beleidigung"), defame ("Verleumdung" or slander ("Üble Nachrede" a person in public life (politicians at all levels) if the insult is "likely to significantly impair the ability of the person concerned to perform their public duties"

Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) – social media platform liability; It obliges large social-media platforms operating in Germany to remove "clearly illegal" content quickly (within 24 h) and illegal content within 7 days, report transparency, store removed content for 10 weeks. This law creates an environment in which platform-moderation is under pressure. Content that may lead to criminal liability (such as insults under §188) may be more likely to be flagged/removed by platforms.

General "insult" (§185 StGB), "slander" (§186 StGB) and "defamation" (§187 StGB) apply to any person, not just public officials. Conditions and penalties are higher under §188 when public officials are involved. Also, laws on dissemination of personal data (doxing) (§126a StGB) were enacted in 2021. While not specific to insulting politicians, they add further online-speech liabilities

I think you have misunderstood something. As far as I know no state has ever declared that its own behaviour can amount to terrorism, and one reason for this is that the state applies to some degree arbitrary violence for ideological gain.

I also suspect that there is more to the regulation you're referring to, like something along the lines of 'that disturbs the state, its foreign relations or inter-state organisations'. Is it in StGB? If so, where?