I think it might hit closer to home, because the insult (accusing someone of being loyal to the empire) is less abstract than insulting someone for having an unscientific world-view. Another benefit is that it makes us seem less like conservatives, and is harder to coopt by patsocs.

Obviously, the insult will probably only become effective if it spreads so that people know what is being referred to. And obviously, liberalism is still a menace.

What do you guys think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 21 points 7 months ago (6 children)

This is a lib analysis of insults.

Insults exist for a specific material purpose and should be analysed with that purpose in mind. That purpose is to make the other person uncomfortable. Discomfort is the basic building block of social behaviour, when you're trying to affect a child's social behaviour you give them discomfort (not necessarily with insults) for the behaviours you don't want them doing and you give them rewards for the ones you do want them doing. This applies as much to adults as it does children but we have less control over the adults (can't naughty step them) so we have different tools to use, insults are one of those.

If a person is not engaging with me the way I want them to engage I will make that engagement uncomfortable until they do, or I will ensure that the engagement is so uncomfortable that the next person they don't perform any of that behaviour with the next socialist they come across because they're avoidant of the same result.

If you do not recognise when and where you should take more aggressive tactics with others you are being a doormat.

Honestly most people you'd insult using these terms probably self identify as such anyway.

Some yes. But in the online space at least there's also an audience. People getting the impression that it's bad to be a loyal citizen of a genocidal empire is a good thing, particularly the onlookers that might be less politically aware.

[–] Lemvi 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

The idea that you can get people to behave the way you want by insulting them doesn't match my experiences. What usually happens is that it shuts down any kind of conversation, as the other side either disengages, starts insulting you as well, or resorts to physical violence. It also has a negative impact on how that person, and others, perceive you, and interact with you in the future.

I also disagree that insulting others is needed to not be a "doormat". It is important to be capable of defending yourself, yes. But I have never found it to be necessary, or even useful, to insult others in order to achieve that.

You can analyze and justify them all you want, but insults are just a cheap way to make yourself feel superior to someone else.

[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Lemvi 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The paradox of tolerance is this: "Defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant". It sounds like a paradox, but I don't think it is, "tolerance" is just poorly defined.

The Cambridge dictionary defines tolerance as the "willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them".

First of, this definition does not differentiate between behaviours that harm others and behaviours that don't.

Secondly it is not clear what "accepting" means or rather what "not accepting" would entail.

Thirdly, it doesn't cover racism, which is not about beliefs or behaviour, but identity.

And fourth: It doesn't differentiate between accepting beliefs and accepting behaviours.

So, here is how I feel about the paradox of tolerance: Fundamentaly, I agree. We do not have to tolerate racism or homophobia etc. Personally, i think we should accept all kinds of beliefs, even that of bigots. We cannot make it a crime to have certain thoughts, only actions/behaviours should be punishable. For actions/behaviours my take is this: as long as it doesn't harm anyone, it should be tolerated. Any behaviour that harms others, in turn, should not be tolerated.

Here's the thing though, what do insults have to do with any of this? I will fight physical violence when I see it, be it racially, politically, or otherwise motivated, but why would I need insults for that?

load more comments (2 replies)