5 ms·

I will write the same comment I wrote on the reddit thread. I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society allow this discourse which

I will write the same comment I wrote on the reddit thread. I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society allow this discourse which gives it a legitimacy that it simply should not have. The most immediate consequence of this is that suddenly journalists are forced to entertain vacine ignorance as a 'valid' or defensable viewpoint to pretend that we have both sides of the 'argument'. It's 2019, there is no argument to be had, stop trying to be respectful, entertaining this is a public health threat.

boomlinde 7y ago
> I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society allow this discourse which gives it a legitimacy that it simply should not have. But it is a movement. That it is has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their goals and ideas. We haven't elevated it by calling it a movement. That we call a spade a spade doesn't imply respect. > The most immediate consequence of this is that suddenly journalists are forced to entertain vacine ignorance as a 'valid' or defensable viewpoint to pretend that we have both sides of the 'argument'. What is the basis for saying that this is a consequence of calling it a movement?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Let's pick up the good old reductio ad Hitlerium. Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of giving them platform to spread their ideas. Views that kill people are rightly prohibited. What will be next, an anti-seatbelt league?
  - boomlinde 7y ago
    > Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of giving them platform to spread their ideas. Hence no one has taken the word "movement" in that case to imply respect and legitimacy. Why should you?
    - DoingIsLearning 7y ago
      Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is loaded with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people will automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people. Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-right groups. Although they are 'technically' a movement you would see them described as far-right 'groups' or even far-right 'radicals'.
      - boomlinde 7y ago
        > Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is loaded with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people will automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people. So if I call something "neo-nazi movement" will people automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people? I think that you overestimate the positive connotations of what you already agree is an entirely neutral word. > Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-right groups. I frequently see neo-nazi groups referred to as movements (especially in plural, since there are many different ideologies with followers that can all fairly be described as neo-nazi movements). To call them "far-right groups" or "far-right radicals" is an euphemism because it drops specificity and bundles neo-nazis together with other radical far right movemenents. Referring to nazis and fascists as the "alt-right" has probably done them a greater service than calling a spade a spade ever has.

boomlinde 7y ago

> I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society allow this discourse which gives it a legitimacy that it simply should not have. But it is a movement. That it is has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their goals and ideas. We haven't elevated it by calling it a movement. That we call a spade a spade doesn't imply respect. > The most immediate consequence of this is that suddenly journalists are forced to entertain vacine ignorance as a 'valid' or defensable viewpoint to pretend that we have both sides of the 'argument'. What is the basis for saying that this is a consequence of calling it a movement?

AstralStorm 7y ago
Let's pick up the good old reductio ad Hitlerium. Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of giving them platform to spread their ideas. Views that kill people are rightly prohibited. What will be next, an anti-seatbelt league?
- boomlinde 7y ago
  > Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of giving them platform to spread their ideas. Hence no one has taken the word "movement" in that case to imply respect and legitimacy. Why should you?
  - DoingIsLearning 7y ago
    Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is loaded with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people will automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people. Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-right groups. Although they are 'technically' a movement you would see them described as far-right 'groups' or even far-right 'radicals'.
    - boomlinde 7y ago
      > Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is loaded with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people will automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people. So if I call something "neo-nazi movement" will people automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people? I think that you overestimate the positive connotations of what you already agree is an entirely neutral word. > Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-right groups. I frequently see neo-nazi groups referred to as movements (especially in plural, since there are many different ideologies with followers that can all fairly be described as neo-nazi movements). To call them "far-right groups" or "far-right radicals" is an euphemism because it drops specificity and bundles neo-nazis together with other radical far right movemenents. Referring to nazis and fascists as the "alt-right" has probably done them a greater service than calling a spade a spade ever has.