Many extremists are getting kicked off platforms but still exist, and some with dangerous beliefs. How do...

AretoNyx: How do people deal with the violence and how should things be dealt with?

🌾 Mental Health and Violence: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_e0DBcigH_-Iyg0DiCyXepXKq1ThQCIG

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_e0DBcigH_9zIW1ClLgJzFtj3ylJIj67

freedomfirst1797: I don't understand your question. Neither one of your links leads to a particular article or video... they just take you to a search page.

Normally, we deal with people who commit acts of violence by arresting them, trying them, and convicting them for whatever crime they committed. And this means they could end up in prison, or forced to get some sort of psychiatric treatment.

If you are talking about people who "advocate acts of violence, but don't commit them" then it really just depends. It CAN be a crime if there is sufficient evidence that they incited someone else to commit a crime, or if they were planning some act of terrorism but never actually did it.

If you are talking about "people who say things that make me feel uncomfortable and not safe" then you are simply insane. Anyone who believes that has wasted their money on college, and should demand a refund. In a free society people are allowed to disagree, and even allowed to say things that are perceived as offensive by others. If being offensive was a crime, then all rap music would be banned.... but it isn't.

If you want a better answer than please clarify your question, or at least provide links directly to you sources.

AretoNyx: No not a particular video but playlists about violence and how it affects others. There are politics on such mentioned generally but it is more over motives.
I am talking on people that actually have harmed kids, women, and men where they actually had committed such violence.
Some have denialism of violent including deadly acts where it was even confessed with evidence against laws.
Some say rape doesn't exist unless it was witnessed by two people even if dna evidence is there, and rape that can kill denial even with such evidence there are many saying it is deserved or it doesn't exist...from all sorts even political leanings. There are extremists on all sorts of views that are violent from all sorts of religious political to just political leaning, but it seems more an excuse rather to me for mob mentality towards violence like a cult would or individuals picking parts in excuse to cause harm even in mass shootings ( mental health warranted or not as mentioned motives in videos on such behaviors).
People can say all sorts of things but there is consequences even with a limit, and most sane understand this. Sure people can do and say things , but not to expect consequences is not a reality.
Even some serial killer write letters to police and that isn't what gets them in jail, and some have sent anthrax in the mail. It is more about motives and what results fron that.

AretoNyx: The links should be youtube playlists but youtube is messing with things again. They do love that favoritism and censorship.

AretoNyx: Some times besides big tech censorship there is also government censorship with laws. Though it is their platform and people sign TOS as mentioned they can do what they want with such data...I have a playlist on data with censorship on facts and evidence too. Not sure if the list would show for you.
Generally it can be known by looking up laws on such state to state, country to country, and so on.
Including on topic how such is dealt with on violence differently of any sort of violence. Laws vary are so do consequences to anything generally.

freedomfirst1797: Thanks for the clarification. In the absence of the explanation, I wrongly assumed you were one of those imbeciles who think "speech is violence and must be sanctioned." Thankfully, I was wrong, and I owe you an apology. I could have avoided this mistake if I had the inclination to view entire playlists.

To get to your specific question, those people who deny that crimes are crimes are enablers or anarchists. Every society creates laws to protect themselves. People can disagree with the concept of law, but they shouldn't be taken seriously. Unfortunately today some of them are being taken seriously and the net result has been a dramatic increase in violent crime.

In the case of rape, the charges are often difficult to prove without physical evidence. And it probably should be that way since the penalty is severe, so some real proof should be required. But there are also cases where the crime isn't even prosecuted despite ample proof. And this is because that particular society is misogynistic (like Saudi Arabia for example) or has too much empathy for criminals (like Seattle or Portland).

There are also a whole subset of people who truly believe that crime doesn't exist. They tell us these violent acts are the result of mental illness and must be treated as such. These folks have unlimited sympathy for criminals and none for their victims. Fortunately, these people are not the majority in most places.

From a practical standpoint motive really doesn't matter. If someone is committing acts of violence, then society must be protected from them. It makes no sense to let them roam freely among us because "they couldn't help themselves because they were mentally ill." That would be the same thing as letting rabid dogs roam freely. For safety they must be excluded from society no matter the cause of their violent acts.

I often wonder why we allow any government censorship at all. Our technology has advanced so much today, that there is a real danger than when President Biden calls Republicans "nazis" that a few million people do a google search for "nazi" in order to understand what he means, they might end up on some sort of terrorist watch list. "You searched a forbidden term, so you are now under suspicion. We are watching you closely now, and we had to hire 90,000 more armed Federal agents to do it."

That might be an extreme case, but it is where all this could lead. So the technological ease we have today in limiting freedom and rights is a huge concern.

Laws vary so much because societies vary a lot in different places. While it might be OK to shoplift "less than $900 a day" in San Francisco, it will get you convicted of a crime in Alabama. Even if you only steal something worth $5. People pretty much get whatever they are willing to tolerate. If your society's threshold for crime is very high, then you probably will get a lot of it.

All these factors must be weighed and balanced, because I would still rather live in crime infected NYC, than in crime free North Korea.

AretoNyx: Actually for some to face consequences if having affluenza isn't a punishment or even getting help even if admitting they rape incest...or kill others drinking and driving it seems. Many states do not yave a death penalty and many do not get caught on terms enough to even stop a cult like Warren Jeffs running one insides a jail. Of course many may make it on a tier list but don't stay or or report an address...and still get jobs. Though even some serial rapists never go to jail unless old and not a woman...there are times some go to jail and others get falsely accused where they can appeal and be free with such as the innocence project.
It usually takes much to get serial rapist and serial murderers in jail , but many still get groupies and married with kids even so.
It isn't like the jail sentence makes everyone powerless where many can still be fine with jail time or reputation afterwards getting good jobs ...including if others ignore background checks. Though there are even adolescence that alao murder or rape...even do so to other children that are neglected or abused in some way that often lead there.
Justice can truly be blind even besides laws what ever variation of such but any how.

DNA rape kits sit rotting away until unusable I hear, but there are so many people seem to not keep up with the on goings most places. Including the rape capital of the world where really in the end most people have to die during a rape before hand or be a serial gang rape ...though legal systems are odd as some supposedly don't even have jail time and others death penalty even if evidence. For murder some have death penalty and others don't.. Some do public beating and other punishment ...others don't for supposed crimes.
It differs over the world.

There are republicans and dems that are against human trafficking , rape, and murder to some extent. Then there are those that are ok with rapists and child porn like a MAP ...where even many republicans were arrested like a to catch a predator type.
Tech is not so much an issue as even dark net or deep net...to websites people can choose what they share. Through out history there has been communications and censorship even before the internet, and people still find ways if not completely an idiot if if what they do with that maybe idiotic. Mostly the freedom issue is a media literacy issue besides a reality of facing how to do things cleverly more than anything else.

Laws do differ but there is favoritism as an issue as well often. I guess to expect nothing less of humans and such.

AretoNyx: I do agree that "big tech" has much power but like anything else those that give power decide who has more so.
"That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet"...

There are some laws and rules ignored ...and just because some place seems crime free doesn't mean immoral or violent or abusive behavior isn't happening ( hypocritical or destructively). Of course people will do as they always do human made rule or law otherwise.

freedomfirst1797: What are the consequences of "affluenza?" I thought it meant you had a lot of money and privilege, and behaved in an arrogant way. Has it been criminalized? Or do you mean "social consequences" of having others mock you?

You really are casting a very wide net when you include wealth and privilege with human trafficking, murder and rape. Did you intend to do that?

AretoNyx: Consequences by definition are not a good or bad...but assumed often only bad. The consequences of neglect is not good for others and in the long run even if not immediately noticed causes more issues with mental and physical...well health or well being in general. There has been some research on the topic of how such behaviors besides neglect but as well as how people are with such things as being rich and not. In the end though not all that always leads to violence but often it can be contributed to how such issues are ignored in the reality of facts laid out. Most do a denialist neglect on a child mental health needs and so cycles continue or ate created in the result of harm to self and others it seems with such medical and psychological research. Though some may just blame curses and demons and pretend that makes things better instead.
For how legally affluenza is dealt with compared to such looking like favoritism beside how rich pay bail...verses those others is how I was referring. Just that there are differences how such has always been dealt with even with government, groups like tribes, or justice systems through out history. It varies on how humans deal with such ancient issues I was generalizing on. Yes it is a wide and long net.

However human trafficking doesn't always contain violence but there is at times violence added whatever work is considered slavery by definition. That is not quite the topic I am pressing to discussion as much.
Forced behaviors has complications where even if a threat or manipulation in some form of abuse or harm is not always considered a violent action. Some say words are actions sure but not even the same thing even if words can be powerful one way or another.

With mocking people will always have such and some play oppression Olympics on such even if they are cringe or playing no true Scotsman fallacy. Not even the topic on violence of rape and murder violence I am mentioning.

AretoNyx: Trying to stay closer to topic mentioned...how do you think violence should be dealt with?

freedomfirst1797: It is a very simple question. So it gets a simple answer.

When violence is illegal, then yes there should be negative consequences for it. When it is legal (as in football, ice hockey, or boxing) then it shouldn't. All acts of violence are not crimes. They must be considered in context. And speech is never violence, despite the current fad that contends that it should be.

I assume you are referring to the illegal kind. We have laws written to sanction those who commit illegal acts of violence. Whether they are properly or fully enforced is a separate question, and the failure to enforce laws could be considered a crime in itself.

On you statement about bail.... if it is done right then it is set to the means of the person charged with a crime. Which means, a rich man would have a much higher bond requirement for committing the same offense as a poor man would. And there are other considerations as well. like prior record, likelihood of flight, and severity of the crime in question.

At least that is what should happen. If it isn't set fairly, then the remedy isn't to eliminate bail completely, but to make it fair in each case.

I think you are over-intellectualizing the topic. This really isn't rocket science. We should have laws to protect society, and they should be administered fairly. It really is that simple.

AretoNyx: All politics is overly everything normally and the reality is what people want to happen politically with laws varies where it isn't in reality fair. Not everyone agrees with death penalty and some states do not have one at all ( just life in prison) as a maximum. Also how people do put others to death in death penalty varies. The solitary confinement varies and yes there is a what " should happen" but I wanted to see what your opinions were. I was being general on the topic.

freedomfirst1797: OK, you seem to feel it isn't fair because not everyone agrees. But the majority does agree, or else those laws would have been changed. And this has happened hundreds of times in the past. Sometimes a population can change their views, and change their laws accordingly.

But if everyone had to agree on everything, then every individual would have veto power over everyone else. And then you would have chaos.

There are certain things that local governments should regulate, and other things that they shouldn't. For example, I have no problem is all 50 states have different laws and regulations about different things, but I would have a huge problem is any of them decided to legalize slavery.

Things are not always fair. And you or I don't get to decide what is fair in other places. Women, have more rights in the USA than they do in Saudi Arabia. It isn't fair, but there is no remedy for this short of invasion and imposition of our values on others. And that would be an unrealistic solution.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "People will get the government they deserve." And I take that to mean if they want something, they must get it themselves. If they don't have it, it is only because they didn't put enough effort into getting it, or the majority of them simply didn't want it. You cannot impose your values on others. I suppose you can try, but you will fail. And we have recent examples of this in Iraq and Afghanistan.

AretoNyx: No not because everyone agrees or disagrees. Life is just not fair and that is just part of life.
Caste system in India to other parts if the world whom ever is arrested or not for the same sort of crime in similar fashion. Just is what it is.
Sure majority some places agree death penalty and other majority choose life sentence in jail. Fine by me.
I was nit referring to legalize slavery, rape , or murder. I mentioned men, women, and children ...not sure why mentioning only women in Saudi Arabia makes any difference to to this topic all are affected.

So your evidence if laws were the same or rules the same always equals chaos for anything? I really would like to see that in some scientific research with peer review.
The way things of laws as they are now people are expected to follow and if not then a punishment exists most likely, but not always of course. In sports even are rules but people that break them are the ones causing chaos among the norm, but really the rules cause the chaos?

The war lords and those making government besides the rules of religion followed whatever interpretation even in Iraq and Afghanistan exist. Same as most places with dictatorship likeness they are following rules and if they do not so it goes those consequences.

freedomfirst1797: I probably didn't express myself clearly.

When I said "If everyone had to agree on everything, then every individual would have veto power over everyone else. And then you would have chaos" I meant that some people will always disagree with some law, and say it is unfair. We have a system that is based on majority rule, so if 75% feel their state should have a death penalty, but 25% do not, then they will have a death penalty that 25% would deem unfair. But it would still be the law, because each individual does NOT have veto power. The majority rules.

But if they did have this power then we would indeed have chaos.

AretoNyx: For a republic democracy ...the ones that make the laws yes on that vote though they are just representatives. Each government differs and courts differ, but yes even if there is a jury majority rules. I guess that is chaos for the person convicted of a crime.