6 ms·

> That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the

> That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views. I don't really think I am victim blaming here. It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. Example: I would never blame a woman who has visited an area with high crime rates for getting raped there. But I still might advise them to e.g. not visit the area at night. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. Same thing here. I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do. > Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped. The key difference is that your example is an issue that allows for immediate action, while (I presume) the issues you are alluding to are of societal and systemic nature. In the analogy, having a civil discussion about the nature of the issue at hand would majorly detract from the victim being rescued. I do not see how this is the case for the actual issues at hand. > That article has very little to do with the topic. Agreed. I basically wanted to give context to my claim that giving in to outrage might lead to people filtering out valid arguments and context. > Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong in some respect. > Mental focus, the foundation of feelings of certainty, distorts reality by magnifying and amplifying one or two aspects of it while filtering out everything else. You might discover more detail about the one or two aspects you focus on, but what you discover will have no contextual meaning, because you have isolated those aspects from their dynamic interaction with the rest of the reality in which they exist. In other words, focus magnifies things out of proportion and blows them out of context. What I'm trying to get at is that I think it is very possible to discuss a situation that, in the eyes of at least one of the participants of the discussion, is worthy of outrage without actually displaying that outrage and staying civil. To again use rape as an example, I think it is entirely reasonable to consider the experiences, pain and outrage of rape victims and their supporters valid, while still wanting them to be involved in civil discussions about the issues of false accusations and due process. (If they are willing to do so, of course) Intuitively understand your concerns about groups of oppressed people possibly not feeling welcome in a completely outrage-free environment, but to me that seems totally unverifiable. Someone could argue for the complete reverse and that would probably be just as valid.

tchaffee 6y ago
> It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. That's victim blaming. And definitely not appropriate when we are talking about society oppressing someone. No one person can control society. And if you belong to a minority, the group you belong to has a much smaller voice when it comes to influencing society. > I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. You keep saying that it creates more members of a radical group, but that's not true. No one becomes the member of a radical group just because someone else is outraged that they are suffering from injustice. And history says you are wrong. From the American Revolutionary war, to the Civil War, the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and to today's black lives matter movement what we have seen is the opposite: the more outrage there is over social injustice the more people eventually decide that the injustice we tolerated in the past is no longer acceptable. When you see conservative four star generals speak up and say we have to do something about racial justice in the USA, you know that the outrage has finally worked. We are on our way to fixing things. The vast majority of the US is moral. And as uncomfortable as outrage might be to us at first, we eventually do listen.
- leotaku 6y ago
  > That's victim blaming. And definitely not appropriate when we are talking about society oppressing someone. No one person can control society. And if you belong to a minority, the group you belong to has a much smaller voice when it comes to influencing society. I genuinely do not understand how someone could possibly claim that simply acknowledging that a victim has influence on their situation is already victim blaming. It's horrible that people even have to think about how best avoid being victimized, yes totally. They should not have to. But that does not mean it should be impermissible to suggest ways they can act in their best interest. > You keep saying that it creates more members of a radical group, but that's not true. No one becomes the member of a radical group just because someone else is outraged that they are suffering from injustice. I'm not convinced. Many people convert to radical groups because they feel ostracized by the mainstream. Screaming "FUCK YOU RACIST! GO DIE" at a forum poster will only push them further right. Engaging with "I think you are mistaken, here is why" might cause them to reconsider at least part of their worldview. > And history says you are wrong. From the American Revolutionary war, to the Civil War, the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and to today's black lives matter movement what we have seen is the opposite: the more outrage there is over social injustice the more people eventually decide that the injustice we tolerated in the past is no longer acceptable. Would you disagree that there might be a better way of achieving change than letting it spiral into an all-out war? That seems a bit accelerationionist-y and I presume that's not what you actually want. > We are on our way to fixing things. I think your optimism is a bit premature.

tchaffee 6y ago

> It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. That's victim blaming. And definitely not appropriate when we are talking about society oppressing someone. No one person can control society. And if you belong to a minority, the group you belong to has a much smaller voice when it comes to influencing society. > I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. You keep saying that it creates more members of a radical group, but that's not true. No one becomes the member of a radical group just because someone else is outraged that they are suffering from injustice. And history says you are wrong. From the American Revolutionary war, to the Civil War, the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and to today's black lives matter movement what we have seen is the opposite: the more outrage there is over social injustice the more people eventually decide that the injustice we tolerated in the past is no longer acceptable. When you see conservative four star generals speak up and say we have to do something about racial justice in the USA, you know that the outrage has finally worked. We are on our way to fixing things. The vast majority of the US is moral. And as uncomfortable as outrage might be to us at first, we eventually do listen.

leotaku 6y ago
> That's victim blaming. And definitely not appropriate when we are talking about society oppressing someone. No one person can control society. And if you belong to a minority, the group you belong to has a much smaller voice when it comes to influencing society. I genuinely do not understand how someone could possibly claim that simply acknowledging that a victim has influence on their situation is already victim blaming. It's horrible that people even have to think about how best avoid being victimized, yes totally. They should not have to. But that does not mean it should be impermissible to suggest ways they can act in their best interest. > You keep saying that it creates more members of a radical group, but that's not true. No one becomes the member of a radical group just because someone else is outraged that they are suffering from injustice. I'm not convinced. Many people convert to radical groups because they feel ostracized by the mainstream. Screaming "FUCK YOU RACIST! GO DIE" at a forum poster will only push them further right. Engaging with "I think you are mistaken, here is why" might cause them to reconsider at least part of their worldview. > And history says you are wrong. From the American Revolutionary war, to the Civil War, the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and to today's black lives matter movement what we have seen is the opposite: the more outrage there is over social injustice the more people eventually decide that the injustice we tolerated in the past is no longer acceptable. Would you disagree that there might be a better way of achieving change than letting it spiral into an all-out war? That seems a bit accelerationionist-y and I presume that's not what you actually want. > We are on our way to fixing things. I think your optimism is a bit premature.