He has hundreds of tweets like this, with insults, calls for violence, extreme aggression, sneering dismissal, the whole rickamarole.
I think some of these are shown in what you link, but ‘calls for violence’ I have not seen. I just searched for it a little, and mostly found him speaking against that.
Everybody’s demanding that everybody else disavow the use of violence.
If you’re a libertarian like me, you already believe in the ‘Non-Aggression Principle’: you never initiate the use of force against anyone.
Might be nice if other political groups adopted the NAP....
If you have to resort violence, intimidation, and censorship, you don’t _really_ have any confidence that your ideas are epistemically or ethically compelling.
I also found him to be consistently annoyed about people blurring the line between aggressive speech and physical violence. Here’s one example.
PS one reason I think it’s important to maintain a crisp distinction between persuasion and coercion is that free speech rights are being eroded by creating a grey area between them, e.g. rhetoric that ‘speech is violence’ or ‘words cause trauma’ rhetoric.
This feels to me like it’s doing a bunch of blurring between aggressive speech and physical violence.
(It’s also IMO a particularly weird stance to have, because he is clearly calling AI labs an existential threat to democracy, as they are an existential threat to all human things, which by the same logic would be an incitement to violence, though I think they aren’t, but like maybe by Geoffrey’s own logic they are?)
I think some of these are shown in what you link, but ‘calls for violence’ I have not seen. I just searched for it a little, and mostly found him speaking against that.
I also found him to be consistently annoyed about people blurring the line between aggressive speech and physical violence. Here’s one example.
Hmm, I don’t super buy this. In 2024 he made a bunch of tweets of this shape:
This feels to me like it’s doing a bunch of blurring between aggressive speech and physical violence.
(It’s also IMO a particularly weird stance to have, because he is clearly calling AI labs an existential threat to democracy, as they are an existential threat to all human things, which by the same logic would be an incitement to violence, though I think they aren’t, but like maybe by Geoffrey’s own logic they are?)