No. It’s recognizing the reality that there are a lot of bad faith bears out there. And some in here.
I probably have more interest than most. I carry around privilege like an invisible, giant, bubble-wrap sphere. But I still work to upset the apple cart, because I recognize that I’m better off with a more equal and just society than riding on the comfortable coattails of the wealthy and powerful.
I, perhaps more than most on BB, have a vested interest in capitalism. And yet here I am, pointing out that the completely unregulated capitalism pushed by the conservative establishment leads to the kind of inequality that gives rise to Hitlers and Robespierres, and that said conservative establishment will readily ally itself with right-wing populists given the opportunity.
The reason I do this is because, unlike Peter Thiel and his Libertarian ilk, I don’t limit my ideal conception of capitalism to the predatory late-stage version we see in play now, and therefore don’t see it as fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. Some on the left here will certainly see that as naive, and that’s fine. But what we’ll agree on is that liberal democracy is by and large a societal good and that fascism is a threat to it that needs to be countered, even with (gasp) uncivil and provocative historical imagery.
Importantly, though, it’s not invisible to you. That’s how you get to…
Even if it means invoking metaphors about white male privilege that some are deeply concerned might hurt the fee-fees of other white males.
That’s funny, because I think we’ve served to illustrate already my original point. A single quote does not entirely obscure the context, but the flow of the conversation is lost from quote reply to quote reply. The original context of my point - which I am imagining when I talk about online systems of communication stripping context - has been lost to the vagaries of the comment system.
You’re only illustrating how to derail. Now you’re patting yourself on the back for doing it.
This is a thread where people were talking about the inanity of comparing guillotine gifs to Donald Trump’s murder spree video. Specifically.
Every comment quote in Discourse has a easy way to expand the quote to the full comment. On the upper right corner of the quote box, there are two buttons: an up arrow (which takes you to the quoted comment in the thread) and a down carat, which expands the quoted comment inside the current post.
I thought it was a thread where people were talking about the appropriateness of “embracing” instead of “countering” the Trump murder spree video, with the guillotine gif only as an example of this.
And the context to that is Here's the mashup video of Trump mass-murdering his enemies, shown at his resort to supporters
which implies we are talking about public memes not bbs memes.
It was split off by the mods from the original topic because Bernel derailed the original topic by insisting on a false equivalency between the guillotine images used here and the video in general.
Nobody here has embraced Trump’s people showing the murder video at Trump’s conference.
If you think a guillotine gif is a sign of approving of Trump threatening journalists, you’re equating the two, even though they’re in wildly and profoundly different contexts.
Where does Bernel refer to guillotine memes other than in the context of boofh’s statement about embracing Trump’s strategy?
It’s not “Public memes: Are you for them 100% of the time or do you want them banned”
If you want to have that conversation, I don’t think you’ll find it here.
No, it’s “do we want to inject ambiguous memes into the public sphere in the way Trump does to create deniable provocation”
That’s certainly what the borderer thinks they are talking about, but which post from Bernel are you referring to?
This one, where he begins his claim that posting a guillotine image here is as threatening as that Kingsman video being posted more generally. He only digs his heels in deeper when others challenge that position.
@the_borderer, by the way, understands on a much more fundamental level than most of us why trying to address and counter fascists with civility is dangerous.
When he says “threatening people with guillotines”, why do you make the inference that he means “posting a guillotine image here”, and not doing the thing Kris_Asard said, which b00fh said we should embrace, which he replied to saying was bad?
Because he doesn’t allow for any other reason why one might post a guillotine image here – zealously so. Seriously, read through this entire topic. It’s right there.
He doesn’t have to, he’s addressing guillotine memes in the context of deniable threats in the public sphere as boofh and Kris_Asard raised? Does Bernel even suggest he’s aware of guillotine memes on this board?
And if @the_borderer replied to his original reply by saying they’re “fucking sick of being told to be civil towards people who want me dead” they would reasonably not also be talking about making memes aimed at other BB users but instead aimed at hostiles outside of BB.
You’re litigating to no end.
If you have a positive position to take on the subject, go ahead.
In my first response to him I provided him with a link to a topic devoted to the subject. If he wasn’t aware of it before that, he was afterwards. He still stuck to his guns.
The only meme aimed (indirectly) at members of the BB community under discussion is the Kingsman video, produced by said hostiles outside of BB. Again, Bernel was drawing a false equivalency between that video and any guillotine image posted here – one that the_borderer and others challenged.
If he miscommunicated, he’s shown no effort to clarify or correct his statements. Quite the opposite. But if you think you can find a way out for him where he can’t or won’t, I have to say it seems like a wasted effort on his behalf (especially since you disagree with his core point that a guillotine image can only be interpreted as a threat of violence and therefore a contributor to uncivil discourse).
No, I think you misunderstand him. What you read as him “denying that someone could use a guillotine meme for any other purpose” is in fact him trying to restrict the frame of what he is objecting to specifically to the original context as he sees it, that of objecting to the idea of ambiguous deniable attack memes in a more public context.
The statement the borderer challenged was a statement opposing adopting Trumpian tactics as defined by Kris_Asard.
The full context, starting from the Kris_Asard comment is this:
And so on, I’m tired, but you get the point here.
