Apr 5, 2020, 12:55 PM
by Tim Kay (well done))
Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others.
Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly.
You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of.
I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence.
In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement.
I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it.
Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?