4 ms·
> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-col
by riquito 5y ago
> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business.
Aren't you (or whoever makes these claims) purposely stopping the "pyramid of hate" where you see fit? You could go on and say "people who joke", "people who talk", "people who meet". You just set the bar where you find a culprit/cause you are willing to demonize, as if it was that clear cut
- bmm6o 5y agoWhat does "people who talk" even mean here? I gather it's supposed to parallel "people who joke about the 'funny' names of people different from them", but how does the phrase end?
- riquito 5y agoSorry, not my mother language. I meant "people who meet and talk to each other"
- bmm6o 5y agoAre you really asking why the line is drawn between "just making harmless jokes" and "making jokes at the expense of another group"? You don't have to agree, but I think the difference and why someone would suggest that's where the line should be drawn is obvious.
- hokumguru 5y agoIs this not just the textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy?
- mpyne 5y ago> as if it was that clear cut My friend, I truly wish interpersonal interaction were 'clear cut', but that is not how things work. And merely wishing that things worked this way does not make it so.