[FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Of course. If we agree that all thought is (miniature) action, then microviolence like using a racial slur is only distinct from macroviolence like sucker punching Nazis as a difference of degree. If Richard Spencer did NOT take getting punched in the face as a rejection of his arguments, then he should seriously rethink his conception of what it means to make an argument.

That implies, given that some violence is illegal and other violence is legal, the delivery of counter-arguments has to be deliberate ... think before you formulate your argument-violence. What type of person will be receiving your argument-violence, and will they be receptive to it? Similarly, when you receive a bit of argument-violence, think about the sender and what message it contains. Did they deliver that argument-violence deliberately?

Only *iteration* can reveal these things. So, you can't abort the dialogue simply because you don't like the form it takes ... or, well, you can abort it, I guess, if you want to remain ignorant.

On 11/25/20 12:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Can we extend the "dialogue" to include violence? 

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ