5 ms·

Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence? Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reacti

Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence? Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, no? I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. Hopefully more folks will begin to see the implicit violence present in minority targeted hate speech. It really does lead to loss of life all too often.

nailer 6y ago
> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat. Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?
- thunkpad 6y ago
  I wanted to disagree with you, but honestly my gut also says the MAGA hat person is at risk. Here's the thing though -- where's the data? Has that actually happened in any significance? Especially compared to right wing violence.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Thanks for being honest. There's a huge amount of video footage of people being beaten by rioters.
    - thunkpad 6y ago
      Please link me! I've been following the pipe bomb situation pretty closely so I've missed a lot of that stuff probably.
      - nailer 6y ago
        You're a green account, so I'm somewhat concerned you migh be a troll or whatever. But assuming you don't live in the US: just Google 'portland violence'
        thunkpad 6y ago
        Yeah I lurked for way too long. Spent like half of yesterday rate limited, which is understandable. :) I actually have a few mutuals who have been on the ground in Portland and I'm in the southeast. I had seen this stuff when it first happened but it's just hard to pay much attention with other deadly force being deployed IMO. If you google Skylor Jernigan, you get nothing but local articles. There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there. e: almost forgot where I am! I rarely get to make this point but here we go: nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement is the exact same thing as FUD, IMO. It's a tactic for maintaining unequal power dynamics.
        nailer 6y ago
        > nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement. > There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there. I don't think there's any equivalency. There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here. Antifa specifically are willing to use violence to suppress disbelievers as part of their manifesto, and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. However I suspect you know this already. And that you're doing that it now.
        thunkpad 6y ago
        > That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement. Establish a pattern of behavior? > There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here. I know it's low hanging fruit but do you find this compelling?: https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3... > and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. Who is antifa??? More FUD. This is, in my opinion, a very lazy and poorly researched argument against the anti-fascist movement. Especially in a country where crime reporting is run through an institution with ties to white supremacy and roots in crushing strikes and capturing escaped slaves. Show me the data. Show me the pattern of left wing terror. > And that you're doing that it now. Not even touching this.. Oh also, are you sure you've been seeing literature from the "real" "antifa"? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-white-supremacists-removal/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-whit...
meowface 6y ago
>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into. Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.
- thunkpad 6y ago
  Agreed that you shouldn't be using Popper as a cornerstone, but I really think it's a great tool for getting folks to step outside a limited perspective. A foot in the door when trying to introduce the difference between hate speech and retaliatory frustration. I think it's also worth mentioning that you are very correct in a need for subtlety -- "kill all women" isn't something you're going to see very often any more. Rather, we get some nonsense about the moral arc of the universe and another endless discussion while people continue to be harmed. I knew (happily past tense) a couple guys who just couldn't kick their absolute vitriol for seeing women thrive while they were struggling. It's super nasty and, in my experience, a way more dangerous thing than someone going off about killing women verbatim. Thanks for pointing out the blind spot though! I've found that way of thinking about morality to be really positive and forgiving -- to view something as a correctable omission rather than a character flaw.

nailer 6y ago

> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat. Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?

thunkpad 6y ago
I wanted to disagree with you, but honestly my gut also says the MAGA hat person is at risk. Here's the thing though -- where's the data? Has that actually happened in any significance? Especially compared to right wing violence.
- nailer 6y ago
  Thanks for being honest. There's a huge amount of video footage of people being beaten by rioters.
  - thunkpad 6y ago
    Please link me! I've been following the pipe bomb situation pretty closely so I've missed a lot of that stuff probably.
    - nailer 6y ago
      You're a green account, so I'm somewhat concerned you migh be a troll or whatever. But assuming you don't live in the US: just Google 'portland violence'
      - thunkpad 6y ago
        Yeah I lurked for way too long. Spent like half of yesterday rate limited, which is understandable. :) I actually have a few mutuals who have been on the ground in Portland and I'm in the southeast. I had seen this stuff when it first happened but it's just hard to pay much attention with other deadly force being deployed IMO. If you google Skylor Jernigan, you get nothing but local articles. There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there. e: almost forgot where I am! I rarely get to make this point but here we go: nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement is the exact same thing as FUD, IMO. It's a tactic for maintaining unequal power dynamics.
        nailer 6y ago
        > nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement. > There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there. I don't think there's any equivalency. There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here. Antifa specifically are willing to use violence to suppress disbelievers as part of their manifesto, and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. However I suspect you know this already. And that you're doing that it now.
        thunkpad 6y ago
        > That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement. Establish a pattern of behavior? > There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here. I know it's low hanging fruit but do you find this compelling?: https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3... > and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. Who is antifa??? More FUD. This is, in my opinion, a very lazy and poorly researched argument against the anti-fascist movement. Especially in a country where crime reporting is run through an institution with ties to white supremacy and roots in crushing strikes and capturing escaped slaves. Show me the data. Show me the pattern of left wing terror. > And that you're doing that it now. Not even touching this.. Oh also, are you sure you've been seeing literature from the "real" "antifa"? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-white-supremacists-removal/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-whit...

meowface 6y ago

>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into. Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.

thunkpad 6y ago
Agreed that you shouldn't be using Popper as a cornerstone, but I really think it's a great tool for getting folks to step outside a limited perspective. A foot in the door when trying to introduce the difference between hate speech and retaliatory frustration. I think it's also worth mentioning that you are very correct in a need for subtlety -- "kill all women" isn't something you're going to see very often any more. Rather, we get some nonsense about the moral arc of the universe and another endless discussion while people continue to be harmed. I knew (happily past tense) a couple guys who just couldn't kick their absolute vitriol for seeing women thrive while they were struggling. It's super nasty and, in my experience, a way more dangerous thing than someone going off about killing women verbatim. Thanks for pointing out the blind spot though! I've found that way of thinking about morality to be really positive and forgiving -- to view something as a correctable omission rather than a character flaw.