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

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago (3 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.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It matches my experiences. I have literally had former libs come back months later and apologise for previous interactions they had with me.

Our interactions do not happen in a vacuum. Zoom out and view things hollistically. I am not the only communist that is going to speak to [belligerent liberal], they are going to encounter others after me. It is NOT possible to turn a liberal in every encounter, moods, daily lives, what kind of shit a person is going through, all kinds of things are out of my control when interacting with a person. The way they interact with me is entirely based on luck.

If luck has it that this person is open minded and has intellectual curiosity then no insults are necessary at all. They are the perfect candidate for education and can be engaged with in good faith. But, as so happens to often be the case, many times the person I interact with is not in this mindset and there is zero chance of turning that person in this single interaction.

My job, holistically, in that situation, is to set this individual up so that the next communist they encounter has an easier time than I have. In order to do that I need to ensure that the behaviours that aren't useful are suitably deterred from occurring again.

I know this works because I have experienced it working dozens of times.

There are times when none of this is necessary, and there are other times when it is beneficial. Being able to judge what to do is a skill that is well worth honing.

The most important skill to learn however is the ability to view yourself and your interactions not as individual interactions but as just one input that exists as part of a whole, a movement. When you understand your interactions on this level then you can tailor your interactions not to the individual level but instead to what benefits the movement as a whole.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think how much i agree with you depends on how far you take this. Does this position extend to debating with hateful beliefs as well? I'm askin', do you go as far as to disagree with the paradox of tolerance?

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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?

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

This is where it gets hairy, since allowing hateful thoughts to be spoken causes real hateful violent actions/behaviors from those they incite. By respecting this "right of bigoted ideas to be received respectfully", the creators of this violence are free to act the way we know they do, that is with no respect for human life. Worse, they avoid blame for what they directly cause thru their hate.

The paradox of debating with those whose beliefs are hateful is: where does it stop being useful and become hurtful? When does being respectful towards hateful ideas become disrespectful to the targets of that hate? Is it possible that by treating hateful ideas respectfully at all you validate them as beliefs that respectable people have?

I think we would both agree there's a vileness line somewhere, yeah? Where you'd stop entertaining their reasoning and shut down debate?

Maybe we even agree on where that line is.

Insults are useful i think and as you say, that's where we don't.

Why shouldn't hateful ideas be made fun of? People entertaining hateful ideas are watching and learning how the world will react to themselves doing the same. Shitheads being treated respectfully makes the watcher believe the ideas are worth respecting. Gets them thinking "respectfully" is how their hateful words will be received. Gets them closer to repeating them louder.

What possible good things can come from allowing hate to be respected? Treat hateful racist ideas with the same respect as flat-earthers, because the idea itself and the people that hold them are foolish.

And why not hurt them? I suppose you don't have a problem with their hurt feelings, but the effectiveness of this tactic, right? I can probably find historical evidence that shame is effective social tool if you want.

Just imagine if Musk (for example) had to do a parade through the streets like cercei in GoT, televised round the globe.

Betcha he'd shut his gob then, huh?

And the world would be better for it. Shameful ideas deserve shame and shame is an effective tool. Every effective tool used against facism is a morally just tool.

[–] heggs_bayer@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

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

"You can use logic and reason all you want, but my vibes say you're wrong."