5 ms·

Cancel-culture? Second-amendment. Disagreeable election-outcome? Second-amendment. Poor service at Applebees? Believe it or not, second-amendment

by iab 5y ago

proc0 5y ago
Should we try to understand, or mock it until it happens?
- iab 5y ago
  Honestly, when the first instinct is to resort to violence and armed conflict, I am content with mocking.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Ok, and I'm all for making fun of anything and everything, but what happens when you mock the other side? When the conversation completely breaks down, violence is the remaining option, and we shouldn't be surprised people go down what they perceive as the only remaining possibility. We need empathy now more than ever.
    - krapp 5y ago
      We no longer live in the days of tribal warfare and duels of honor. Violence is not a legitimate response to ridicule. And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive techies is the one that needs to practice empathy. People like Matt Gaetz are fascists, and fascists thrive on projecting a aura of menace and intimidation and righteousness and cultivating a sense of respect and authority that justifies their violent ideology. The way to fight that is to ridicule and humiliate them, to make it clear that society has no place for their brutality and foolishness.
      - iab 5y ago
        This is a much better response than what I started to write.
      - jaldhar 5y ago
        We don’t? A few days in the blue city in a blue state where I live, a young Black man was shot (we have strict gun control laws) by a young Hispanic man over something he may or may not have said to the latters girlfriend. Still, I’ll agree that we shouldn’t be living in the days of tribal warfare and duels of honor. I’ll wait with anticipation for your ridicule and humiliation of those wayward urban teens. Somehow I suspect your choice of targets is a little more...tribal?
      - proc0 5y ago
        > And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive techies is the one that needs to practice empathy. I think you are downplaying what is going on. Did you forget social media banned POTUS? Millions of people voted for this person, and that banned caused extreme division in the U.S. (I think that was the plan, but that's a different matter). If he was so dangerous and a dictator, why did he step down!? One side is alienating millions of people, calling them names, and shutting them down. What do you think will happen? They will just take it with a smile? (please answer this, it's an important question, how should they take it?) > fascists thrive on projecting a aura of menace and intimidation and righteousness and cultivating a sense of respect and authority that justifies their violent ideology What is the end goal? The rhetoric you're using isn't going to end with both sides drinking tea and chatting together. Is that what people want? Let's keep insulting them and provoking them until they break and then AHA! there it is! They are being violent! Got 'em! If we add fuel to the fire, we are provoking, and we are no better than the violent people. If you don't acknowledge these are humans with genuine concerns, then you are dehumanizing them, and again, we shouldn't be surprised where that goes.
        iab 5y ago
        Violence is a choice; “Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said” is how your argument can be condensed. This is unacceptable.
    - iab 5y ago
      I take your broader point that empathy is important; this is absolutely true. But in no way can this type of rhetoric - and the violence it intentionally stokes - be seen as the only remaining possibility.
      - proc0 5y ago
        > But in no way can this type of rhetoric - and the violence it intentionally stokes - be seen as the only remaining possibility. I think if you don't see how it's the only remaining possibility, then you might be lacking empathy. Imagine getting insulted by someone and when you want to verbally defend yourself, you can't because a mob of people don't let you speak. This happens again and again... what are your options in the moment? I think it would be either keep getting verbally assaulted, or try to somehow defend yourself. Now imagine that when you start giving out verbal warnings that you will physically defend yourself, the other person uses that as justification to continue the verbal assault. At that point, it's almost like both parties want to fight. One is provoking, the other is ready for it.
        iab 5y ago
        If you think that an armed response is the only remaining response, you are misguided and naive. Your example shows again how you see violence as inevitable and justified, which intimates to me a blinded worldview.
jschveibinz 5y ago
Thank you for the reference.

Cancel-culture? Second-amendment. Disagreeable election-outcome? Second-amendment. Poor service at Applebees? Believe it or not, second-amendment

by iab 5y ago

Cancel-culture? Second-amendment. Disagreeable election-outcome? Second-amendment. Poor service at Applebees? Believe it or not, second-amendment

proc0 5y ago

Should we try to understand, or mock it until it happens?

iab 5y ago
Honestly, when the first instinct is to resort to violence and armed conflict, I am content with mocking.
- proc0 5y ago
  Ok, and I'm all for making fun of anything and everything, but what happens when you mock the other side? When the conversation completely breaks down, violence is the remaining option, and we shouldn't be surprised people go down what they perceive as the only remaining possibility. We need empathy now more than ever.
  - krapp 5y ago
    We no longer live in the days of tribal warfare and duels of honor. Violence is not a legitimate response to ridicule. And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive techies is the one that needs to practice empathy. People like Matt Gaetz are fascists, and fascists thrive on projecting a aura of menace and intimidation and righteousness and cultivating a sense of respect and authority that justifies their violent ideology. The way to fight that is to ridicule and humiliate them, to make it clear that society has no place for their brutality and foolishness.
    - iab 5y ago
      This is a much better response than what I started to write.
    - jaldhar 5y ago
      We don’t? A few days in the blue city in a blue state where I live, a young Black man was shot (we have strict gun control laws) by a young Hispanic man over something he may or may not have said to the latters girlfriend. Still, I’ll agree that we shouldn’t be living in the days of tribal warfare and duels of honor. I’ll wait with anticipation for your ridicule and humiliation of those wayward urban teens. Somehow I suspect your choice of targets is a little more...tribal?
    - proc0 5y ago
      > And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive techies is the one that needs to practice empathy. I think you are downplaying what is going on. Did you forget social media banned POTUS? Millions of people voted for this person, and that banned caused extreme division in the U.S. (I think that was the plan, but that's a different matter). If he was so dangerous and a dictator, why did he step down!? One side is alienating millions of people, calling them names, and shutting them down. What do you think will happen? They will just take it with a smile? (please answer this, it's an important question, how should they take it?) > fascists thrive on projecting a aura of menace and intimidation and righteousness and cultivating a sense of respect and authority that justifies their violent ideology What is the end goal? The rhetoric you're using isn't going to end with both sides drinking tea and chatting together. Is that what people want? Let's keep insulting them and provoking them until they break and then AHA! there it is! They are being violent! Got 'em! If we add fuel to the fire, we are provoking, and we are no better than the violent people. If you don't acknowledge these are humans with genuine concerns, then you are dehumanizing them, and again, we shouldn't be surprised where that goes.
      - iab 5y ago
        Violence is a choice; “Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said” is how your argument can be condensed. This is unacceptable.
  - iab 5y ago
    I take your broader point that empathy is important; this is absolutely true. But in no way can this type of rhetoric - and the violence it intentionally stokes - be seen as the only remaining possibility.
    - proc0 5y ago
      > But in no way can this type of rhetoric - and the violence it intentionally stokes - be seen as the only remaining possibility. I think if you don't see how it's the only remaining possibility, then you might be lacking empathy. Imagine getting insulted by someone and when you want to verbally defend yourself, you can't because a mob of people don't let you speak. This happens again and again... what are your options in the moment? I think it would be either keep getting verbally assaulted, or try to somehow defend yourself. Now imagine that when you start giving out verbal warnings that you will physically defend yourself, the other person uses that as justification to continue the verbal assault. At that point, it's almost like both parties want to fight. One is provoking, the other is ready for it.
      - iab 5y ago
        If you think that an armed response is the only remaining response, you are misguided and naive. Your example shows again how you see violence as inevitable and justified, which intimates to me a blinded worldview.

jschveibinz 5y ago

Thank you for the reference.