[armada651]

> At which point it's not clear that we even need a step two, because then the relevant people are in jail.

I know the US has the biggest prison population in the world, but you can't keep these people in prison for life. They will be released from jail at some point and start spreading their ideology again.

I hate to pull a godwin, but "let's throw the insurrectionists in jail and that's the end of that" hasn't worked out well historically. Let's just hope none of them writes a book while doing their time.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I know the US has the biggest prison population in the world, but you can't keep these people in prison for life.

I think murdering a police officer is a capital offense. You don't get back out of jail after that one.

But even for the people committing less violence than that, and who in turn eventually get released, they only stay released if they stay non-violent. Otherwise they're right back to jail.

> I hate to pull a godwin, but "let's throw the insurrectionists in jail and that's the end of that" hasn't worked out well historically. Let's just hope none of them writes a book while doing their time.

So now we're abandoning even the premise of free speech?

If people are engaged in violence you put them in jail. If people are non-violently saying dumb things and you don't agree with them, you say your thing too.

[armada651]

> But even for the people committing less violence than that, and who in turn eventually get released, they only stay released if they stay non-violent. Otherwise they're right back to jail.

I am of the opinion that we should prevent violent insurrection rather than waiting for it to happen and then responding with jail time.

> So now we're abandoning even the premise of free speech?

Where did I say that? I'm not saying we should prevent all book publishing, but you do understand what historical precedence I was referring to right?

> If people are engaged in violence you put them in jail. If people are non-violently saying dumb things and you don't agree with them, you say your thing too.

If the dumb thing they're saying is that all politicians are satan worshipers and pedophiles, then it doesn't matter what "thing" I have to say to them.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I am of the opinion that we should prevent violent insurrection rather than waiting for it to happen and then responding with jail time.

Responding with jail time is how you prevent it, through deterrence.

> I'm not saying we should prevent all book publishing, but you do understand what historical precedence I was referring to right?

Presumably the unconstitutional Son of Sam laws?

> If the dumb thing they're saying is that all politicians are satan worshipers and pedophiles, then it doesn't matter what "thing" I have to say to them.

I disagree. There are still things you can say and do to black pill the crazies.

Now, sometimes the only thing you can do to convince them is to do something, because just saying "no you're wrong" isn't much of an argument. Whereas, say, arresting and prosecuting everyone involved with Jeffrey Epstein would satisfy a lot more people that there isn't a vast international conspiracy of pedophile Satanist cannibals, as compared to the presumably truer situation in which a lot of powerful people were involved a major statutory rape and prostitution debacle and yet thus far have escaped prosecution.

[armada651]

> Presumably the unconstitutional Son of Sam laws?

I am not, I am referring to a historical example where a bunch of insurrectionists were thrown in jail and it was not an effective deterrent.

> Whereas, say, arresting and prosecuting everyone involved with Jeffrey Epstein would satisfy a lot more people

You really think that arresting and prosecuting Trump, among others, would satisfy the people who stormed the capitol to keep him in power?