4 ms·

> 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 approp

> 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
  > 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. The dangerous neighborhood example is such a classic that it's easy to find. Items 5 and 9 on this list: https://msmagazine.com/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples-of-victim-blaming/ https://msmagazine.com/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples... > Screaming "FUCK YOU RACIST! GO DIE" at a forum poster will only push them further right. No it won't. What you are advocating for is tone policing. You are claiming that reasonable outrage is going to radicalize people and therefor people should not express anger when they have every right to be angry. "If she had calmed down, I wouldn't have hit her". Classic abuser and oppressor excuse. > Would you disagree that there might be a better way of achieving change than letting it spiral into an all-out war? Yes there is a better way. People should listen to outrage and fix things before it's too late. That onus is on the oppressor. Exactly what I've said all along. > I think your optimism is a bit premature. Time will tell. When formerly silent conservatives start joining progressives and all are with one voice saying "we must fix this", it's a damn good sign.
  - leotaku 6y ago
    > The dangerous neighborhood example is such a classic that it's easy to find. Items 5 and 9 on this list: I think you understand why citing a list tangentially related statements with entirely different intent and basically no other information will not change my mind. If you don't, please re-read my previous comments. > No it won't. I have given a statement, which in my understanding is consistent with the modern understanding of radicalisation, that argues that it does. I'm in no way an expert but I would appreciate a better response than "No". > What you are advocating for is tone policing. You are claiming that reasonable outrage is going to radicalize people and therefor people should not express anger when they have every right to be angry. "If she had calmed down, I wouldn't have hit her". Classic abuser and oppressor excuse. This argument relies on the premise that I am a bad-faith actor. I am not. The abuser would have hit her regardless, I am actually interested in having a discussion. Also, you yourself state how hard it is to pinpoint appropriate outrage. > People should listen to outrage and fix things before it's too late. That onus is on the oppressor. Exactly what I've said all along. You fail to argue that this means that outrage is necessary in all forms of discussion and that an outrage-free environment is inherently oppressive. I'm not saying it's the end-all solution, but certainly seems like a better idea than an environment where any group or group of groups is the arbiter of appropriate outrage.

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
> 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. The dangerous neighborhood example is such a classic that it's easy to find. Items 5 and 9 on this list: https://msmagazine.com/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples-of-victim-blaming/ https://msmagazine.com/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples... > Screaming "FUCK YOU RACIST! GO DIE" at a forum poster will only push them further right. No it won't. What you are advocating for is tone policing. You are claiming that reasonable outrage is going to radicalize people and therefor people should not express anger when they have every right to be angry. "If she had calmed down, I wouldn't have hit her". Classic abuser and oppressor excuse. > Would you disagree that there might be a better way of achieving change than letting it spiral into an all-out war? Yes there is a better way. People should listen to outrage and fix things before it's too late. That onus is on the oppressor. Exactly what I've said all along. > I think your optimism is a bit premature. Time will tell. When formerly silent conservatives start joining progressives and all are with one voice saying "we must fix this", it's a damn good sign.
- leotaku 6y ago
  > The dangerous neighborhood example is such a classic that it's easy to find. Items 5 and 9 on this list: I think you understand why citing a list tangentially related statements with entirely different intent and basically no other information will not change my mind. If you don't, please re-read my previous comments. > No it won't. I have given a statement, which in my understanding is consistent with the modern understanding of radicalisation, that argues that it does. I'm in no way an expert but I would appreciate a better response than "No". > What you are advocating for is tone policing. You are claiming that reasonable outrage is going to radicalize people and therefor people should not express anger when they have every right to be angry. "If she had calmed down, I wouldn't have hit her". Classic abuser and oppressor excuse. This argument relies on the premise that I am a bad-faith actor. I am not. The abuser would have hit her regardless, I am actually interested in having a discussion. Also, you yourself state how hard it is to pinpoint appropriate outrage. > People should listen to outrage and fix things before it's too late. That onus is on the oppressor. Exactly what I've said all along. You fail to argue that this means that outrage is necessary in all forms of discussion and that an outrage-free environment is inherently oppressive. I'm not saying it's the end-all solution, but certainly seems like a better idea than an environment where any group or group of groups is the arbiter of appropriate outrage.