That seems to me like a somewhat odd way to put it. From where I stand, the large majority of objection to "state monopoly on violence" comes from those who otherwise express a strongly collectivist worldview.

Like I said, very confused.

> I just don't understand why we have all these adages to convince people that "violence is always wrong", while I'm sure some at least some of the people who say that are actively engaged in building machines designed to kill people.

First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence. Second: because not all such violence is part of what you presumably have in mind when you speak of "ongoing conflict". (Of which there are many; when you speak of "an ongoing conflict" you come across as having a particular agenda, although of course I don't know which.)

> But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?

There is no contradiction and thus nothing to square. People are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, nor of members of their identity groups, and especially not of the ancestors of members of their identity groups. And there is no contradiction between "the ends don't justify the means" and the ends being just.

> First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence.

Unfortunately "trusted people" don't grow on trees... but those who do grow to the highest positions of power, with the most destructive weaponry under their control, ask for trust with stuff like: "No foreign wars", "I'll end that conflict on day one"... "after bringing prices back down".

With that said, changing the conversation from violence to trust in the ideas and people who control it, is a worthwhile endeavor.

>> The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

That's quite backwards, violence is an irrational response to today's problems. Demonizing the discussion of those problems as "violence" can't be trusted - if the discussion stops, a rational solution will never be found.

>> trust in the ideas and people who control it,

This right here is the crux of the issue. I don't even trust my own computer without fairly deep introspective tools, and what we're given for 'leadership' is 'this totally outdated and opaque system of voting for corporate shill A or corporate shill B is totally trustworthy! You obviously cannot think that you could get by without some asshat running your whole society so be thankful'.

Direct democracy, liquid democracy - whatever you pick that removes the middle man will be a marked improvement from day 1. We do not need these people deciding what's best for us. I'm not sure we ever did.

> Using the geometric mean, that average is about 0.12 mm

That's... actually kinda cool to know.

It's true!

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Geometric+mean+of+%28Pl...

Don't let Louis Rossmann hear you say that, though.

> by making it look

I have yet to see a good reason to believe that it isn't actually the case.

Can you, perhaps, cite your own pre-2020 writing attesting to the problem, and explaining why it should be considered a problem?

Do you consider that using the name "master" for a branch tends to endorse or normalize slavery, or (even stochastically) increase the amount of slavery that occurs in the world?

If so, how?

If not, why is it actually a problem to reference the concept (even disregarding the evidence that it was not intended to do so)?

Somehow, "primary degree" really doesn't have the same ring to it.

Can you name any person who publicly registered any form of annoyance reading the old name, prior to the movement to replace the name?

Can you cite any person, before, during or after, who gave a valid, coherent argument as to why the old name should annoy anyone? (Or are you willing to attempt one yourself?)

Note: the two arguments I am familiar with boil down to "it could be understood as describing a bad historical event, and ipso facto must not be uttered", and "if I am annoyed by something then that is inherently valid and you lack standing to question me, on account of my identity characteristics". I don't accept either of these as valid, for hopefully obvious reasons.

(And in fact, I can't recall actually ever seeing the second argument deployed honestly. I can only recall seeing people not of the relevant identity characteristics presuming that they were defending people who would feel that way.)

If you want to overlay precise text on an AI-generated image, why is AI useful for that? Surely you can just tap existing text shaping and rendering libraries?

Of course, once you add a condition like that, the probabilities change....