The author seems to have some cognitive dissonance. For a piece saying that you cannot justify violence, there sure seems to be an awful lot of justifying violence in here.
History is just full of emotional contradictions I guess. French and Russian revolutions were terrible bloodbaths, smaller violent movements like Luddite one caused deaths and achieved nothing - it would be stupid to approve any of these. But you could also see why this violence happened, and assign an appropriate share of blame to those who held the power to resolve social contradictions in a more equitable way and decided not to do so.
You should probably read up on cognitive dissonance, because this ain't it. Here's what the author actually wrote:
> Nothing that Altman could say justifies violence against him. This is an undeniable truth. But unfortunately, violence might still ensue. I hope not, but I guess we are seeing what appears to be the first cases.
> Nothing that Altman could say justifies violence against him.
Not arguing with you, but the author, I don't understand this line of thinking.
If Altman introduces a technology that effectively halts the upward mobility of a large portion of the population, how does that not justify violence? Saving up for a house but now there's no work. Your dreams and aspirations are second to shareholder value. The police are already there to protect the shareholders, not the average civilian.
What recourse is there? The money in politics limits the effect voting can have. You can't really opt-out of the system. Why does Sam Altman get this nice little shield where none of his actions can have a negative consequence?
Maybe the author believes in the fact that violence is never justified, and thus the things you mentioned can only be used to explain violence, never justify it? Either way, it's a weird way to think indeed.
I think you're going to be killed for the side you've taken here. No no, I'm not saying you deserve it! In fact, I actually agree with you, you said nothing wrong. I'm just speculating on outcomes I think are likely and I think it's likely that somebody will look you up and track you down and take out their unjustifiable but completely understandable frustration on you. Please understand, I don't support this, I'm just talking about the possibility!
Of course, by talking about the possibility, despite asserting my disapproval of it, I am sowing seeds, but I assure you that's certainly not my intention!
I don't see any justification - the article is quite clear that it is anti-violence. Explanation and analysis is not, on its own, justification. This is one of the discursive patterns that most infuriates me: any attempt to analyse something can be seen as promotion or justification. Some of us want to figure out how things work and chart a course through, we are not trying to push an agenda in every single sentence.
