3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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.