Asklemmy

43392 readers

1450 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

143

What would you like to change about Lemmy culture? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 month ago by PinkyCoyote@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

496 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You are being disingenuous here. I'm not shifting their argument. Here is their full comment with annotations -

Sooner or later, a trans woman forced through male puberty by arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap

Annotation 1: politicians making incorrect choices are going to force the hand of activists for this cause...

and attempt to assassinate the PM or health minister.

A2: which will inevitably lead to political violence against members of the government

Then the other boot will come down: the Daily Mail will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Guardian will join in, and the government will follow.

A3: Then the media will blame the activists instead of themselves

In what world is that not advocating for political violence?

Let's replace the issue in question and see if it still sounds ok to you:

Sooner or later, a white nationalist forced to experience mass imigration due to arbitrary rules/culture-war politics will snap and attempt to assassinate the PM or home secretary. Then the other boot will come down: the Guardian will demand a crackdown, and the usual voices in the Daily Mail will join in, and the government will follow.

Does the above sound acceptable?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's simple, the government oppressing minorities will usually lead to said minority group lashing out.

This is what happened in Palestine.

This is not an argument for violence, but for government action to prevent violence by ceasing oppression of minority groups.

Simple.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."

Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."

This is literally the dictionary definition of advocating for something.

Advocate, verb, to publically suggest an idea, development or way of doing something.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your argument here is just saying, "Political violence is justified if a minority are being oppressed."

I mean, I believe that, but that's not my point. The point is that minority populations will strike back, regardless of advocacy.

Maybe you are tweaking it to be, "Political violence is to be expected if a minority are being oppressed."

That's literally the argument, though. You misunderstood it.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The 2nd argument there, the one you claim to be making, is advocating for political violence.

I don't think you're debating in good faith here.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

How is saying "people will eventually fight if oppressed hard enough" the same as saying "oppressed people should fight their oppressors?"

The first statement is analysis of cause and effect, the second is advocacy. You're intentionally misframing it to spread a narrative.