commenter-thread

Rest assured, when I disagree with you, even if I do so stridently, it's because I disagree with you, and you being trans doesn't factor into it.

Noses, faces, and cutting implements...

Shit like that makes me seriously wonder WTF got wired wrong for those people.

We are talking past each other, and the joke isn't worth the time to explain.

I thought we were talking about people today?

Yeah, that was a stretch on my part.

sigh...

You aren't wrong. It's the stable genius of Trump at work.

It is the kind of thing I get upset about, but GODAMNITALL every other tweet by Trump is something I would normally get upset about.

Except it's Trump, so 80% of the time, he's forgotten about it because someone pulled out a laser pointer in the Oval Office and Trump started chasing it around, and 15% of the time the courts slap him down so hard you can probably feel it up there in AK.

Now that 5% of the time, that shit pisses me off, but I have to wait until it begins to manifest into something coherent before I begin expending fecks.

You are suggesting he keeps poisoned treats on hand?

Because I've used treats to bring unleashed dogs to me so I can grab their collar, not so I can poison them.

Except it has been settled, but reality is not real anymore, because literally nothing _sticks_, and bigots create their own reality...

Yet another reason Post-Modernists don't get bashed enough.

Probably true, but we also have a lot of people who, much like the McCarthy era, and the Moral Majority era, see fascists and white power folks behind every tree.

Proportionality is what is lacking in many cases. One could argue that the 'bloodlust' is justified when it comes to people in positions of power, who too often avoid any cost that is even close in proportion to the harm they cause.

But again, when that same 'bloodlust' hits someone who is not powerful, it blows proportion out of the water.

He never threatened her dog, he told her to follow the rules and leash her dog.

I'm with Duck, those were fun times, why would we want to repeat that again?

Private publications are free to do as they wish. I DO NOT care.

I care about one thing - non-public figures who are dragged through the mud because somebody somewhere took offense to something they said online and decided to put them on blast for no reason other than it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'd love it if Twitter* had an algorithm that watched for non-public figures having a tweet going viral, and if it did, the algorithm would shut it down. Make the account private, and cache all references to the tweet (or screenshots of it, etc.) until the account holder could approve or decline to have it go public.

I mean, this is my perennial complaint, is it not? I do not care if public figures feel the heat. I care about non-public figures. I care about people deciding that any and every differential in power or privilege is a dragon to slay, even if it's just a gecko, and regardless of the harm it causes.

Remember that guy in NY that had the police called on him by a white woman because he told her to leash her dog. She was publicly shamed, and lost her job, and her dog. And the guy is refusing to cooperate with prosecutors, saying she has suffered enough. He's my hero, because he said enough.

How many people, do you think, will respect his wishes that it be done with?

*Or other social media platform of your choice. I'm betting they could do that easy enough, but don't, because there is money, somewhere, when shit goes viral.

Free speech allows people to say 'those comments are sexist and you are wrong to say that'. Free speech permits a consensus of the majority to form and say 'those comments are sexist and you are wrong to say that'.

What I don't want is for a minority to say 'those comments are sexist and you are wrong to say that' and then enforce that through intimidation tactics. Not because I think sexist comments are a social good, but because I see it as a Death Ray.

As to my analogy, what is bad for X may not be bad for the whole, and may, in a way, be necessary.

Think of it this way; we can not eliminate Nazi or Soviet Communist beliefs from the social body, because the only way to combat that infection is to constantly expose people to why it is a bad thing. In the process of exposing those ideologies and explaining why they are bad, we will, undoubtedly, expose people to those ideas who find them compelling*, rather than revolting. It's the risk that we take, because pretending such ideas didn't and don't exist is a greater risk. Yet there are people who would much rather prefer that talking about either thing be hate speech, or only be allowed in very tightly controlled settings, etc.

*This has always been the case. The only thing that has changed is that the internet and rapid travel has allowed what were normally a small, isolated set within any community to find each other across the globe and appear greater than they are**.

**But, I'm sure someone will tell me I am wrong and these people are Legion, and the greatest lie Satan ever told was that he didn't exist.

Free speech is how we determine what is toxic to the body as a whole.

I mean, it's a good thing the skin doesn't get to declare that hydrochloric acid is toxic to the body and should not be permitted anywhere near it.

As Murali says, all analogies are bad analogies.

Sure, but just because you have one kind of power and not another doesn't mean you are a valid target.

A soldier has the power that comes from years of training and combat experience, a considerable amount of power that can be expressed through violence. That does not mean that a soldier is a valid target for police brutality.

The trick is making sure that you target the criticism at actual powerful people.

Agree, and it's something I (& others hereabouts) have said many times, that canceling/deplatforming is too often a mob thing, rather than a careful thing.

It is, IMHO, the social equivalent of a riot destroying buildings. The riot burning down a police station is one thing. The riot that burns down the local grocery store...

But, unfortunately, the action is not, actually, about justice. Justice might be a secondary effect of the action, but ultimately the action is about satisfying some desire to feel powerful. And there is a pretty clear line between feeling powerful because you struck back at power, and just being a bully.