I don’t think that what I’ve come to call ‘niceness’ is for the benefit of the recipient wholly, or, indeed, even mostly. I advocate it because it, in part, because it helps the people practicing it most of all. The way you keep talking about it is as if I suggest laying down a weapon, but if tribal invective is a weapon, it’s one whose barrel faces the wrong way.
Your argument makes sense if being nice is a sacrifice. I do not think it is. Common meanness gains you nothing, helps no-one. Certainly, if you must fight then fight and win, but fighting has nothing to do with petty insults and is aided by them not a whit. Your enemy and mine in this struggle is poisoning themselves with petty-minded tribalist nonsense. I can see no conceivable benefit in copying them.
You rail at the brutal being given the most leeway and I agree: it is not fair but the universe has no law promising fairness. That’s up to us. Do you know of a way to win that’s fair? Because the brutal are, in large numbers, broken not evil. You can try the hard work of helping them or the equally hard work of killing them. Or do you suspect that if you pour enough invective and hate their way they’ll see the error of their ways? Or melt away?
Are we in a state of war, then?
Agreed. But (a) what of the people watching the dispute who haven’t dehumanized anyone, not yet and (b) what profit is there in calling these people you cannot communicate with names?
I mean, I live in a country that is slowly eroding my right to make medical decisions about my body, solely based on my gender. Making comments on the internet carries with it a strong risk of being attacked or doxxed. For many woman, just walking down the street means that you are subject to harassment. That’s just talking about gender. Should I bring up the fact that for people of color, there are other, very real risks, just for existing? Do you think that non-white people in America (and in other places where America is waging war) feel safe on a daily basis? What about undocumented workers and their families? Or young black men? Or LBGQT Americans, with now have a guy who believes in conversion therapy as a “solution” to people being gay? The election of the current president only hyped up this war, because it put people in positions of power who are only looking to expand this war, until we’re all meekly silent again. Women, POC, and the LBGQT community didn’t start it. We’re merely attempting to be treated as human beings here.
I agree that copying others’ bad behavior is not productive.
Which is not to say that I’m disagreeing with others here, either.
I think that protecting our own hearts from becoming mean and hateful, and fighting to change what so obviously needs to be changed, aren’t mutually exclusive endeavors. Both are important.
Ah. Therein lies our disagreement. I don’t think it is. I think tribalism and meanness and things such as that offer a Molochian bargain: throw what you value most in the fire and you will gain victory. Like all such deals it is a lie.
But clearly, we cannot persuade each other. At least we’ve come to the root of the disagreement. I consider the matter settled if you do?
I see. Then, for all our sake, I hope you’ve something more effective than ‘broflake’ to wage this war with.
Pardon me, but it isn’t off-topic. This whole thread is about a brand new nasty name being invented.
Agreed. I’m not talking about semantics, however. I’m talking tactics. If you cannot talk to your enemies and convince them to be friends or at least neutral, then you can either fix whichever grievous wound makes them so cruel or you can fight them. Directly. The middle road of just being maximally mean to them simply makes everything worse. That’s my whole point in a nutshell.
Sure, but using “broflake” just doesn’t strike me as all that mean and nasty. Especially given the context in which it’s arisen. And as I did way upthread, it’s more a matter of intended accuracy than intended cruelty.
Anyway, time to step aside again here so men can keep tone-policing women.
To my mind, that’s a lot less objectionable than ‘broflake.’ It’s not a slur, not a dismissal, but a remarkably clear method of communication. Communication of dislike, admittedly, but…
Further, there’s a world of difference between finally saying this to someone (who quite likely deserves it) and leading by classifying your interlocutor as someone whose opinion, pain, and ultimate fate simply does not matter.
I appreciate parts of your argument that relate use of language to regulating a healthy internal perspective, but this style of communication is functional and disrespectful in appropriate ways.
Well, we’ll see, won’t we? I ain’t the boss of you and don’t want that distinction either. I think it’s counterproductive, you (and others) don’t, but we all want roughly the same thing. Considering how many people seem to disagree, here’s hoping I’m wrong.
What has given you the impression that this is what anyone here leads with? Note that even in the original article by @beschizza this is being used for Dana Loesch*, someone who has long ago proven herself to not be interested in reasonable discourse.
* This time i made extra sure i spelled her name right.
This sounds like you are saying that we need to be careful with our messaging to young people. The future isn’t about us or how we choose to say things because future generations will see through every argument we’ve made and every attempt at PR. Pretending we know how to seem right is foolish.
What you are saying here is that you don’t understand broflake. When I saw the word I said, “Holy crap, exactly.” As did most of the people discussing this and others I’ve shown it to. It means something very specific, and it is calling out bad behaviour, not just making up a novel insult.
violent act? the ‘crime’ aspect of it has rather been debunked and was lazy of me, but the point re: violence (which was the point) I think stands? I would agree that criminalizing it was an inhumane approach, from the past. I’ve edited my post accordingly, thanks.
