>>2644048Your five words have tied me in a bit of a knot. These two forces were intentionally distinguished from one another, but perhaps this was wrong, and power is empty without material implications.
Trying to untangle this knot, I've run into several problems. The most significant is thinking in terms of there being things which rather than being materially inconsequential are in fact immaterial. Spooks.
So you can debate whether or not hate speech legislation is material consequential, is it enough, but you can't debate if it's material. Or that there's something like an immaterial power. This should have been obvious.
The second mistake is the idea that potential to use force (the monopoly on violence) is the same as using it, and what the implications of this are? Potentials are empirically immaterial - an immaterial power. So there's nothing special about threats except that they might elicit a reaction with material consequences.