3 ms·

Let's imagine the issue is about gay people who murder their partners. Reframing it as "against gay people" might be technically true, but factually incorrect.

freedomben 5y ago
Thanks that's an interesting point. I'll have to think on that a bit.
pphysch 5y ago
That's a contrived reframing. Why not have the issue be about "people who murder their partners"? What does their sexuality have to do with anything? If someone made your issue, I would immediately assume it was a veiled act of prejudice (e.g. replace "gay" with "Black"). A more honest reframing would be VK allowing/encouraging people to say "Death to America" and death threats against American soldiers, due to illegal invasions in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria/etc. How do you think Western governments would respond to that, if it became a big deal?
- rendall 5y ago
  The OPs claim is that allowing violent rhetoric against the Russian army is anti-Russian. True or not, how "Western governments would respond to" allowing violent rhetoric against US soldiers, isn't relevant to that claim. And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    > And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive. Logically, you are correct. In reality, people aren't so logical. They see Russia, they see red. There has been a massive explosion of outright russophobia across the West since the war started.
    - rendall 5y ago
      You could argue that the effects of allowing violent rhetoric against an invading army is tantamount to allowing violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. Then we can have something to discuss. I would disagree, but it's not untrue. What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true. You are of course aware that russophobia against ethnic Russians was the pretense by which Russia invaded Ukraine the first time. It was reprehensible then to conflate ethnic violence with nationalistic expansionist rationalizations, and it is reprehensible now.
      - freedomben 5y ago
        You keep repeating variations of this: > What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true. No, that's NOT what I said. And you should know this, as I already told you at least once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30755880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30755880 What I actually said: > Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that. I consider members of the Russian military (who, by the way, are mostly there by force, not free choice) to still be Russians. Unless you want to turn my statement into a strawman that you can easily knock down, then you should be making the argument that members of the Russian military aren't Russians.
        rendall 5y ago
        > I consider members of the Russian military... to still be Russians. therefore FB allows violent statements against Russians This is sophistry and a category error; and even were it arguable, it is literally incorrect. The Russian army is comprised of other ethnicities and nationalities as well. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-701018 https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-701018 Advocating violence against an invading army: ethical. Advocating violence against members of an ethnicity: reprehensible. Conflating the two, so that people might believe that one is the same as the other: confused at best, if not evil. Which is what you are attempting to do, here. I keep "repeating variations of this" because it is exactly what you wrote. You conflated "Russians" with the "Russian army". When called out on it, you doubled down "Well, Russian soldiers are technically Russians so...." You did that. No one else.
akvadrako 5y ago
Do you think FB allows talk of killing "gay people who murder their partners"?

freedomben 5y ago

Thanks that's an interesting point. I'll have to think on that a bit.

pphysch 5y ago

That's a contrived reframing. Why not have the issue be about "people who murder their partners"? What does their sexuality have to do with anything? If someone made your issue, I would immediately assume it was a veiled act of prejudice (e.g. replace "gay" with "Black"). A more honest reframing would be VK allowing/encouraging people to say "Death to America" and death threats against American soldiers, due to illegal invasions in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria/etc. How do you think Western governments would respond to that, if it became a big deal?

rendall 5y ago
The OPs claim is that allowing violent rhetoric against the Russian army is anti-Russian. True or not, how "Western governments would respond to" allowing violent rhetoric against US soldiers, isn't relevant to that claim. And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive.
- pphysch 5y ago
  > And, no, violent rhetoric against an invading national army is not equivalent to violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. The idea is offensive. Logically, you are correct. In reality, people aren't so logical. They see Russia, they see red. There has been a massive explosion of outright russophobia across the West since the war started.
  - rendall 5y ago
    You could argue that the effects of allowing violent rhetoric against an invading army is tantamount to allowing violent rhetoric against an ethnicity. Then we can have something to discuss. I would disagree, but it's not untrue. What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true. You are of course aware that russophobia against ethnic Russians was the pretense by which Russia invaded Ukraine the first time. It was reprehensible then to conflate ethnic violence with nationalistic expansionist rationalizations, and it is reprehensible now.
    - freedomben 5y ago
      You keep repeating variations of this: > What OP said is that violent rhetoric against an ethnicity (Russians) is allowed, which is not true. No, that's NOT what I said. And you should know this, as I already told you at least once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30755880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30755880 What I actually said: > Before we all pile on Russia, if you aren't aware of the rule change that FB made to allow violent statements against Russians (but not against any other group), you should learn about that. I consider members of the Russian military (who, by the way, are mostly there by force, not free choice) to still be Russians. Unless you want to turn my statement into a strawman that you can easily knock down, then you should be making the argument that members of the Russian military aren't Russians.
      - rendall 5y ago
        > I consider members of the Russian military... to still be Russians. therefore FB allows violent statements against Russians This is sophistry and a category error; and even were it arguable, it is literally incorrect. The Russian army is comprised of other ethnicities and nationalities as well. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-701018 https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-701018 Advocating violence against an invading army: ethical. Advocating violence against members of an ethnicity: reprehensible. Conflating the two, so that people might believe that one is the same as the other: confused at best, if not evil. Which is what you are attempting to do, here. I keep "repeating variations of this" because it is exactly what you wrote. You conflated "Russians" with the "Russian army". When called out on it, you doubled down "Well, Russian soldiers are technically Russians so...." You did that. No one else.

akvadrako 5y ago

Do you think FB allows talk of killing "gay people who murder their partners"?