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.