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.
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.