5 ms·

Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good,

Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.

nerdponx 5y ago
Eh. First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.
lostmsu 5y ago
This statement is exactly true after removing "as extreme" too. These days anyone with a different opinion can be considered an enemy, extreme or not. Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).
- ixacto 5y ago
  It’s the exact same in-group/out-group tactic that the neo-conservative republicans were using in the early 2000s with terrorism e.g. “if you’re not with us then you’re with the terrorists” == “if you’re not out protesting/twittering/tumblring then you’re with the white supremacy patriarchy.” Actually quite interesting how you can use the same tactics in a totally different population and get people all riled up. Most likely just political maneuvering by parties to engage voters. Looking at it objectively I also didn’t see the media covering the Tusla massacre (as abhorrent as it was) nearly as much as they have been in the last couple days, which does lead to the suspicion that the coverage is politically motivated.

nerdponx 5y ago

Eh. First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.

silicon2401 5y ago
> "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.

lostmsu 5y ago

This statement is exactly true after removing "as extreme" too. These days anyone with a different opinion can be considered an enemy, extreme or not. Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).

ixacto 5y ago
It’s the exact same in-group/out-group tactic that the neo-conservative republicans were using in the early 2000s with terrorism e.g. “if you’re not with us then you’re with the terrorists” == “if you’re not out protesting/twittering/tumblring then you’re with the white supremacy patriarchy.” Actually quite interesting how you can use the same tactics in a totally different population and get people all riled up. Most likely just political maneuvering by parties to engage voters. Looking at it objectively I also didn’t see the media covering the Tusla massacre (as abhorrent as it was) nearly as much as they have been in the last couple days, which does lead to the suspicion that the coverage is politically motivated.