The second is a rather touching faith in the ability of people’s virtuous behavior to influence their political opponents.
This may be true but vicous behaviour will encourage political oponents to retaliate in kind. It’s called tit-for-tat and this article suggests you don’t understand it.
Now, if it happened that my actions had any influence whatsoever over the behavior of r/TumblrInAction, that would be great. I don’t screenshot random tumblr users and mock them in front of an audience of over three hundred thousand people,
Maybe you personally don’t but the SJ movement you seem to support certainly does that to random social media users and not just mocks them but goes after them and their families and tries to get them fired from their jobs.
For instance, they could be tolerant of teenagers with dumb political beliefs, remembering how stupid their own teenage political beliefs were.
Because it’s not like SJ’s would do something like attempt to destroy the career of a celebrity chef over her having used the word “nigger” 60 years ago. Also, making fun of their dumb political beliefs is a great way to encourage tennagers to adopt less dumb political beliefs.
They could stop making fun of deitykin, otherwise known as “psychotic people with delusions of grandeur,” because jesus fucking christ it is horrible to mock a mentally ill person for showing mental illness symptoms. They could stop with the “I identify as an attack helicopter” jokes; I mean, I don’t have any ethical argument against those jokes, it’s just that there is exactly one of them that was ever funny.
Disagree, it’ll remain funny as long as people like yourself insist that any analogous argument applied to gender is beyond question no matter how stupid it is, or how much logic is tortured in the process. It’s certainly funnier than the ridiculous “flying spaghetti monster” thing.
Maybe you personally don’t but the SJ movement you seem to support certainly does that to random social media users and not just mocks them but goes after them and their families and tries to get them fired from their jobs.
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn’t actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
However, your point—that while Ozy is not contributing to this norm, other people are—is worth addressing.
Ozy’s claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn’t automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
This may be true but vicous behaviour will encourage political oponents to retaliate in kind. It’s called tit-for-tat and this article suggests you don’t understand it.
Even if one side stopped doxxing, the other side would probably keep doxxing.
Tit for tat doesn’t work very well if everyone just keeps defecting on each other. This is unusually likely to happen—and it is in fact what’s happening—because there are hundreds of individual actors who aren’t particularly coordinated. If you dox SJ #1 and SJ #1 repents and decides never ever to dox again, SJ #2 doesn’t necessarily care.
Also, many people who dox don’t conceive of the situation in this way. “I doxxed someone, so in return I got doxxed. Therefore, I will never dox again.” No, when they dox people it’s good because those people are bad; when they get doxxed it’s bad because they’re a good person.
In order to resolve the problem where everyone keeps defecting, it takes more than just one side saying, “Oh, I’ll cooperate every time!” It takes some kind of unifying authority or agreement or something.
Disagree, it’ll remain funny as long as people like yourself insist that any analogous argument applied to gender is beyond question no matter how stupid it is
I’m pretty sure that you’re not talking to Ozy here, and have instead replaced them with some generic opponent who hates ever being questioned. As far as I can tell, this is not something that Ozy believes.
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn’t actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
Except the OP is presented as an arguments against the elements of SJ that would oppose it.
Ozy’s claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn’t automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
Yes, it’s a lot easier to maintain a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium than to return to one once you’re side has started defecting.
Also, many people who dox don’t conceive of the situation in this way. “I doxxed someone, so in return I got doxxed. Therefore, I will never dox again.” No, when they dox people it’s good because those people are bad; when they get doxxed it’s bad because they’re a good person.
While near as I can tell this does seem to be a good description of how SJ’s think, the typical way the Alt-Right thinks is, “The SJ’s dox us, therefore we’re justified in doxxing SJ’s”.
While near as I can tell this does seem to be a good description of how SJ’s think, the typical way the Alt-Right thinks is, “The SJ’s dox us, therefore we’re justified in doxxing SJ’s”.
I’d be interested in seeing a citation for this, just like a link to a discussion in a “typical alt-right place” that uses this reasoning explicitly
Here is Vox Day explicitly arguing that if conservatives can be fired for expressing their opinions, so should NFL player for disrespecting the flag.
We all know that the NFL wouldn’t hesitate to act if players started throwing Nazi salutes; they already come down hard on the expression of any opinion that is negative about homosexuality.
The Rubicon has been decisively crossed, so it’s time to start cracking down on “speech” Americans don’t like.
Always play by the rules that are actually in place, not by the rules that you wish were in place.
That looks to me not so much like “The enemy does X, therefore we’re justified in doing the same to them” but “The enemy does X, therefore no one can object to our doing the same to them without hypocrisy”. I think Vox Day and his pals would want NFL players fired for “disrespecting the flag” (etc., etc., etc.) even if no one were doing anything of the sort to rightists.
(I’m sure there is a lot of “they did X to us, so we can do X to them” thinking going on, though, on all sides. It’s a very standard social failure mode and tends to lead to prolonged escalation.)
[Note from the Sunshine Regiment] This comment (and other comments by user lmn) have been in parts aggressive and pushed towards having more tribal disagreements. As such, I’ve been in touch privately with lmn, and also given them a 7-day suspension from commenting, voting and posting.
I replied to some of lmn’s comments before noticing that you said s/he’s been suspended. I’d feel a bit bad about that, if it weren’t for the fact that in fact the suspension seems not to have happened; at any rate, lmn has made further comments since the alleged suspension...
This may be true but vicous behaviour will encourage political oponents to retaliate in kind. It’s called tit-for-tat and this article suggests you don’t understand it.
Maybe you personally don’t but the SJ movement you seem to support certainly does that to random social media users and not just mocks them but goes after them and their families and tries to get them fired from their jobs.
Because it’s not like SJ’s would do something like attempt to destroy the career of a celebrity chef over her having used the word “nigger” 60 years ago. Also, making fun of their dumb political beliefs is a great way to encourage tennagers to adopt less dumb political beliefs.
Disagree, it’ll remain funny as long as people like yourself insist that any analogous argument applied to gender is beyond question no matter how stupid it is, or how much logic is tortured in the process. It’s certainly funnier than the ridiculous “flying spaghetti monster” thing.
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn’t actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
However, your point—that while Ozy is not contributing to this norm, other people are—is worth addressing.
Ozy’s claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn’t automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
Even if one side stopped doxxing, the other side would probably keep doxxing.
Tit for tat doesn’t work very well if everyone just keeps defecting on each other. This is unusually likely to happen—and it is in fact what’s happening—because there are hundreds of individual actors who aren’t particularly coordinated. If you dox SJ #1 and SJ #1 repents and decides never ever to dox again, SJ #2 doesn’t necessarily care.
Also, many people who dox don’t conceive of the situation in this way. “I doxxed someone, so in return I got doxxed. Therefore, I will never dox again.” No, when they dox people it’s good because those people are bad; when they get doxxed it’s bad because they’re a good person.
In order to resolve the problem where everyone keeps defecting, it takes more than just one side saying, “Oh, I’ll cooperate every time!” It takes some kind of unifying authority or agreement or something.
I’m pretty sure that you’re not talking to Ozy here, and have instead replaced them with some generic opponent who hates ever being questioned. As far as I can tell, this is not something that Ozy believes.
Except the OP is presented as an arguments against the elements of SJ that would oppose it.
Yes, it’s a lot easier to maintain a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium than to return to one once you’re side has started defecting.
While near as I can tell this does seem to be a good description of how SJ’s think, the typical way the Alt-Right thinks is, “The SJ’s dox us, therefore we’re justified in doxxing SJ’s”.
I’d be interested in seeing a citation for this, just like a link to a discussion in a “typical alt-right place” that uses this reasoning explicitly
Here is Vox Day explicitly arguing that if conservatives can be fired for expressing their opinions, so should NFL player for disrespecting the flag.
That looks to me not so much like “The enemy does X, therefore we’re justified in doing the same to them” but “The enemy does X, therefore no one can object to our doing the same to them without hypocrisy”. I think Vox Day and his pals would want NFL players fired for “disrespecting the flag” (etc., etc., etc.) even if no one were doing anything of the sort to rightists.
(I’m sure there is a lot of “they did X to us, so we can do X to them” thinking going on, though, on all sides. It’s a very standard social failure mode and tends to lead to prolonged escalation.)
[Note from the Sunshine Regiment] This comment (and other comments by user lmn) have been in parts aggressive and pushed towards having more tribal disagreements. As such, I’ve been in touch privately with lmn, and also given them a 7-day suspension from commenting, voting and posting.
I replied to some of lmn’s comments before noticing that you said s/he’s been suspended. I’d feel a bit bad about that, if it weren’t for the fact that in fact the suspension seems not to have happened; at any rate, lmn has made further comments since the alleged suspension...
Er yup, I noticed this. Oops. We’ll push a fix for this in the next 24 Hours.
Edit: I’d accidentally just set his karma weight to zero. Fixed. And banned.
Thank you! Hooray for this sort of thing :)