The Difference
Jan. 21st, 2017 06:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI'm at Panera, and I don't really feel like writing anything in particular. But I do really feel like playing 4thewords, so Imma just ramble for a while.
My Twitter feed is All Politics All the Time Now. A big popular thing is Punch Nazis in the Face. Some white nationalist dude got punched in the face and my Twitter feed is now all Pro-Violence All the Time. I am still not pro-violence against people who are not actually using force themselves. Like, sure, yes, if Nazis have declared war and are attacking people in the streets, you should definitely fight back. If Nazis have seized control of your government and are rounding people up to take them to concentration camps, that is a great time to start shooting Nazis. If Nazis have taken control of your government and are repealing the ACA, I am not sure violence is the optimal answer for that problem, though. Like I think you might still have other options you could explore. I mean, I don't remember the part where Obama started shooting GOP members so he could get the ACA passed so it's possible that's not necessary? Just a thought.
I recognize that the white nationalist creep who got punched has views far more contemptible than "repeal the ACA". But I am still a big fan of the first amendment and letting people voice their views no matter how gross and despicable. I advocate fighting speech with MORE SPEECH, not punching.
I didn't realize this was a controversial position. Apparently it is not only a controversial view, but possibly a minority one.
I don't talk about this on Twitter because Twitter remains literally the worst medium ever invented for talking about politics. I remember when I thought political ads on TV were the worst but wow, they are nuanced and rational compared to Twitter's PUNCH NAZIS IN THE FACE THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.
I don't really know where I draw the line and I am afraid at some point I will need to draw it.
A few people have linked to articles that talk about actual life under authoritarian regimes, and how in the real world most people live banal and ordinary lives under authoritarian governments. Like Americans have this picture of what countries under a dictatorship look like and it's all burning, hollowed-out cities and jackbooted thugs dragging people away in the middle of the night and broken families and ... that's not really what it looks like for most people living under oppression.
Some of my friends get deeply upset by these articles: "You're normalizing evil! You're saying authoritarianism is Not That Bad."
And I keep thinking, "No. They're saying that when authoritarianism happens here we are not going to notice. Because we expect it to look really obvious and horrible and it's not gong to be like that. If you keep exaggerating how bad it is to live under one then people are going to say 'This can't be what authoritarianism looks like! There's no fire anywhere!'"
I can't remember his exact words any more, but one of the things Koogrr used to say was "If this was an actual evil person doing [X], how would I know the difference?" Where [X] is any morally difficult choice.
How would I know the difference?
A lot of my Twitter friends are very angry at anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the last election. In the "if you didn't vote for HRC you are irredeemably evil" kind of way.
I voted for HRC and I am ashamed to have Trump as my president and I hate that the GOP will soon control* all three branches of federal government. But I don't think the people who voted for Republicans or independents in the last election are evil, or stupid, or ignorant. I especially don't think they are irredeemable.
* I have to note that this is a value of "control" that doesn't actually have the kind of ideological solidarity that people generally think it does. It is, nonetheless, bad.
That last point is the most important to me. Because the truth is, history is full of people who supported and did horrible things, and I don't mean Nazis and Hitler. I mean George Washington, the father of my country, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, both of whom owned and raped slaves. I mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal, who imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens in internment camps for years solely because they were of Japanese descent. I mean that our heroes are problematic.
Like, a truckload more problematic than "opposes the ACA and doesn't trust Hillary Clinton."
The point where I knew I would never, under any circumstances, vote for Trump came for me in 2015, when he said that he supported banning Muslims from coming to America, including American citizens traveling abroad. The point where someone starts talking about internment camps based on race or religion like that is a reasonable step is the point where I am done. That is Not Acceptable.
But that he said it doesn't mean it's on his agenda of Things To Do, and I understand that, too. Lots of presidential candidates say things that please their base and no one expects them to do a thing on it. I can't say that I understand overlooking it. But I recognize that's what most of the people who voted for Trump did, for whatever reason, by whatever means.
There may come a point when it does come to this. When the government is rounding people up based on their religion and locking them up. And if that day comes, and people I know are defending that action -- if they say "Well, you know, Muslims, most of them are terrorists supporters" or otherwise try to justify that due process is unnecessary and irrelevant and this really isn't That Bad: that is the point where I will say "yup, you must be evil or stupid or ignorant."
That is the point where I will stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
There are other lines to cross. Criminalizing homosexual behavior, say -- not just "outlaw gay marriage again" but "lock people up for having gay sex". I can live with the former but not the latter. Literally not the latter: I am one of the people who'd get locked up.
But we are not there yet. None of those things are on the table; they are not in bills before Congress or in acts that the president has authorized. The Supreme Court has not ruled that any of them are constitutional, and every recent judicial precedent goes NOPE NOPE NOPE on them. I know people are afraid that they will come to pass, but "afraid of what might happen" is not the same as "this is happening RIGHT NOW and ONLY VIOLENCE CAN STOP IT."
I don't believe in using violence to stop people from talking, even when what they talk about is, in fact, evil and stupid and ignorant.
That is principle; that is the first amendment. But it is also self-defense. Because whatever I support being done to people I disagree with may someday happen to me. Given the government we have right now, I expect it will happen to me first.
I thought a lot about whether or not I wanted to post this, because ugh, politics. Then I remembered that very few people read my journal these days, which is strangely empowering. *waves to the ten or so of you* *hugs you all* You will probably forgive me for being insufficiently in favor of violence. n_n
My Twitter feed is All Politics All the Time Now. A big popular thing is Punch Nazis in the Face. Some white nationalist dude got punched in the face and my Twitter feed is now all Pro-Violence All the Time. I am still not pro-violence against people who are not actually using force themselves. Like, sure, yes, if Nazis have declared war and are attacking people in the streets, you should definitely fight back. If Nazis have seized control of your government and are rounding people up to take them to concentration camps, that is a great time to start shooting Nazis. If Nazis have taken control of your government and are repealing the ACA, I am not sure violence is the optimal answer for that problem, though. Like I think you might still have other options you could explore. I mean, I don't remember the part where Obama started shooting GOP members so he could get the ACA passed so it's possible that's not necessary? Just a thought.
I recognize that the white nationalist creep who got punched has views far more contemptible than "repeal the ACA". But I am still a big fan of the first amendment and letting people voice their views no matter how gross and despicable. I advocate fighting speech with MORE SPEECH, not punching.
I didn't realize this was a controversial position. Apparently it is not only a controversial view, but possibly a minority one.
I don't talk about this on Twitter because Twitter remains literally the worst medium ever invented for talking about politics. I remember when I thought political ads on TV were the worst but wow, they are nuanced and rational compared to Twitter's PUNCH NAZIS IN THE FACE THAT WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.
I don't really know where I draw the line and I am afraid at some point I will need to draw it.
A few people have linked to articles that talk about actual life under authoritarian regimes, and how in the real world most people live banal and ordinary lives under authoritarian governments. Like Americans have this picture of what countries under a dictatorship look like and it's all burning, hollowed-out cities and jackbooted thugs dragging people away in the middle of the night and broken families and ... that's not really what it looks like for most people living under oppression.
Some of my friends get deeply upset by these articles: "You're normalizing evil! You're saying authoritarianism is Not That Bad."
And I keep thinking, "No. They're saying that when authoritarianism happens here we are not going to notice. Because we expect it to look really obvious and horrible and it's not gong to be like that. If you keep exaggerating how bad it is to live under one then people are going to say 'This can't be what authoritarianism looks like! There's no fire anywhere!'"
I can't remember his exact words any more, but one of the things Koogrr used to say was "If this was an actual evil person doing [X], how would I know the difference?" Where [X] is any morally difficult choice.
How would I know the difference?
A lot of my Twitter friends are very angry at anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the last election. In the "if you didn't vote for HRC you are irredeemably evil" kind of way.
I voted for HRC and I am ashamed to have Trump as my president and I hate that the GOP will soon control* all three branches of federal government. But I don't think the people who voted for Republicans or independents in the last election are evil, or stupid, or ignorant. I especially don't think they are irredeemable.
* I have to note that this is a value of "control" that doesn't actually have the kind of ideological solidarity that people generally think it does. It is, nonetheless, bad.
That last point is the most important to me. Because the truth is, history is full of people who supported and did horrible things, and I don't mean Nazis and Hitler. I mean George Washington, the father of my country, and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, both of whom owned and raped slaves. I mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal, who imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens in internment camps for years solely because they were of Japanese descent. I mean that our heroes are problematic.
Like, a truckload more problematic than "opposes the ACA and doesn't trust Hillary Clinton."
The point where I knew I would never, under any circumstances, vote for Trump came for me in 2015, when he said that he supported banning Muslims from coming to America, including American citizens traveling abroad. The point where someone starts talking about internment camps based on race or religion like that is a reasonable step is the point where I am done. That is Not Acceptable.
But that he said it doesn't mean it's on his agenda of Things To Do, and I understand that, too. Lots of presidential candidates say things that please their base and no one expects them to do a thing on it. I can't say that I understand overlooking it. But I recognize that's what most of the people who voted for Trump did, for whatever reason, by whatever means.
There may come a point when it does come to this. When the government is rounding people up based on their religion and locking them up. And if that day comes, and people I know are defending that action -- if they say "Well, you know, Muslims, most of them are terrorists supporters" or otherwise try to justify that due process is unnecessary and irrelevant and this really isn't That Bad: that is the point where I will say "yup, you must be evil or stupid or ignorant."
That is the point where I will stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
There are other lines to cross. Criminalizing homosexual behavior, say -- not just "outlaw gay marriage again" but "lock people up for having gay sex". I can live with the former but not the latter. Literally not the latter: I am one of the people who'd get locked up.
But we are not there yet. None of those things are on the table; they are not in bills before Congress or in acts that the president has authorized. The Supreme Court has not ruled that any of them are constitutional, and every recent judicial precedent goes NOPE NOPE NOPE on them. I know people are afraid that they will come to pass, but "afraid of what might happen" is not the same as "this is happening RIGHT NOW and ONLY VIOLENCE CAN STOP IT."
I don't believe in using violence to stop people from talking, even when what they talk about is, in fact, evil and stupid and ignorant.
That is principle; that is the first amendment. But it is also self-defense. Because whatever I support being done to people I disagree with may someday happen to me. Given the government we have right now, I expect it will happen to me first.
I thought a lot about whether or not I wanted to post this, because ugh, politics. Then I remembered that very few people read my journal these days, which is strangely empowering. *waves to the ten or so of you* *hugs you all* You will probably forgive me for being insufficiently in favor of violence. n_n
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 03:49 am (UTC)People often proclaim 'free speech' when they're talking about actions and words in private areas, and protest 'censorship' when they're being excluded from those private areas. Honestly I wish people would try to get along better and agree to differ, erring on the side of tolerance of many kinds of people. (I would have said 'tolerance' period but some people can argue 'tolerance' should mean 'tolerate my exclusion of others')
I mean, what are we going to do when aliens discover Earth and suddenly we aren't the biggest fish in the pond anymore? -_-
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 02:52 pm (UTC)Yes, that would be why I said "I am still not pro-violence against people who are not actually using force themselves". If people are boxing someone in or otherwise restraining them, that is use of force. :|
And yeah, there are a few very limited exceptions where speech warrants the use of force IMO, but those are mostly in the category of "true threats", like if a man carrying a gun says "I'm going to shoot you right now". Or incitement to imminent violence, like if a person says to another person with a gun, "I will pay you $10,000 to shoot that other guy right now".
Richard Spencer is vile trash, but he's not doing either of those things. x_x
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 05:28 pm (UTC)Honestly, these guys are trolls, they want attention. What they need is to be shunned. Not simply ignored or treated as if they were everyday citizens, shunned-- refused from private events and forums ("The manager reserves the right to decline service to anyone"), left out, et cetera.
It's not feasible or reasonable to exclude based on someone's *opinions* but if they are *in your face* about it -- dressing up in Nazi costumes, say -- that's an attempt to provoke a reaction from others. Denying them that reaction is removing fuel from the fire.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 06:40 pm (UTC)Seems like that's actually a legal defense according to that article! "... it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation."
So yeah, that guy totally had it coming. :)
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 03:36 pm (UTC)But about the other thing, y'know, I grew up with history lessons about Nazi Germany, and with "never again!", and as a result, I disagree with your assessment RE Trump voters. With Trump's promised policies against people based on race and/or religion, and his constant harping on "Make [our country] great again!", he was really open about being a nazi. Anybody who voted for him either is a nazi, or is too ignorant to recognise one unless a German accent or something like an SS uniform is involved.
Not irredeemable, no, but who knows what the learning will cost the US and the world. -_-
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 05:10 pm (UTC)I remain optimistic that it won't get to WWII Germany conditions in America, but yeah, this will be more a matter of chance than design.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 01:30 am (UTC)On the one hand I do understand all the arguments against it.
On the other we're not talking "fascism" as an insult for those to the right of us politically here. We're talking honest to goodness "hurray for the blackshirts" fascists. If they are anywhere near power democracy is in fatal danger because fascism wins by subverting democratic norms and freedoms to its advantage. To quote one tweet from a really good thread on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/823319604386791424
"Fascism wriggles into democracies by insisting on the right to be heard, achieves critical mass, then dissolves the organs that installed it."
So my brain is like "punching people for talking is not good" but also "fascists want you to let them speak because they don't care about reason and that's how they win".
It's a thorny conundrum.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 11:07 pm (UTC)The whole thing doesn't sound like how you STOP fascism, it sounds like what fascism IS. I don't get how it's going to help in the long run to start making classes of ideas that are "so horrible you are not allowed to talk about them". The latter feels like a surefire recipe for the Trump administration to start arresting people THEY don't like, and claiming "their ideas are too horrible to contemplate! Look at them advocating violence in the face of political dissent!"
x_x
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 02:14 am (UTC)I don't think I can live with the former. I have too many gay friends whose marriages, potential or actual, are important to them.
The thing that gets me about Trump is that... Either there are very few people who have lived with abusers in this country, or there are so many that they've normalized it. I looked at him and I saw my late sire, writ larger and with richer parents, and fled screaming. (Though for what it's worth, my sire might've had better picks for Secretary of X Departments. Which is saying SOMETHING. *headdesk*)
I am of two minds on punching Nazis. Maybe 3, because I am bloody-minded (look, I embraced the Sith label a long time ago and am waiting for my lightning badges to arrive...). On the one hand, yeah, you're right. On the other hand, it also strikes me as pushback for a social norm that says, "Being a Nazi is socially unacceptable." In a problematic way. Though for Nazis, who believe in Nazi things, and are currently emboldened to be kind of publicly Nazi... I'm not sure the problematic isn't also proportional? So. Conflicted. Also bloody-minded. Red lightsaber should arrive any day now, yes? >_>
*sighs*
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 04:11 am (UTC)Yours sounds like a perfectly reasonable description of Trump to me.
I already said my bit about Nazi-punching, so, yeah. I think Cluudle below has a good point that most people are using it as a joke, and while "use violence against speech" is not the awesomest thing to joke about, I can understand why people find it funny. :/
no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 12:52 am (UTC)I'd like the government to not be involved either, but unfortunately, with varying degrees of recognition for different formations of People Living Indefinitely With Other People... Someone needs to have the big stick to say, "No, hospital where dying person was taken because it was an emergency, you MUST allow the person's designated PLIWOP-partner(s) to visit them, and make medical decisions, even if you don't approve of that pattern of PLIWOP!"
There's also the structure of taxation, that currently impacts PLIWOPs... So it's tangled. It'd take a lot of editing to untangle in something vaguely resembling a fair way.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 03:06 am (UTC)Part of twitter being a bad medium for politics is that my absolute glee about a Nazi getting punched in the face doesn't have wordspace for bits like 'that doesn't mean we should make a habit of punching Nazis,' or really any other complicated bits.
I have a complicated tangle of feelings about people who voted for Trump, but I haven't stopped talking to anyone over it yet.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 04:00 am (UTC)The reaction was that this -- that saying "maybe don't cheer use of violence against speech" -- was a completely unacceptable, unforgivable, monstrous thing to tweet. His work needed to be boycotted! He needed to be destroyed! HOW DARE HE. He is Neville Chamberlain! He is saying we should all stand still and be slaughtered!
...
So it's not just "Rape jokes are hilarious!" but "IF YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST RAPE JOKES YOU DESERVE TO BE RAPED."
...
I guess after a while of this, I lost my sense of humor. v_v
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 04:15 am (UTC)I'm a little too tired to make sense tonight, I'm sorry - I'll swing back around later. We shouldn't tear each other to pieces, though, turning the internet into a circular firing squad.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 03:16 am (UTC)If we're going to get ourselves out of this deep division, we need to stop demonizing everyone who disagrees with us. :/ Punching people in the face doesn't move us in that direction.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 04:21 am (UTC)Although, I have to admit, I don't mind people demonizing white nationalists. I mean, Richard Spencer (the guy who got punched) advocates for "a white homeland" and "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and deliberatle uses Nazi rhetoric. I am totally down with people calling him a vile scumbag, because wow, HE REALLY IS.
But yeah, it bugs me a iot that (a) people have collectively decided that his speech is enough to justify violence against him and (b) that I can't tell the difference between what lot of vocal liberals say about Richard Spencer vs what they say about any given conservative. v_v
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 05:17 pm (UTC)The particular GIF I saw, its hard to see, but it looked like the hitter was in the standard Black Bloc attire of black hoodie/balacalva/etc. I wonder how many of the people laughing at the image also were outraged when the peaceful protestors they were supporting were linked to the violent activity of the BB in places like DC? There's an inconsistency there.
My other thought...I think there's a lot of people who mistake suppressing speech as the same thing as making the ideas behind them disappear, too. Doesn't work that way - the person may not be saying the objectionable things anymore, in public, but you can bet they're still harboring them in their heart, and these days its simple enough to find like-minded folk online without the risk of confrontation. Pushing something underground doesn't make it go away - you'd think progressives would understand that, since many come from discriminated groups themselves.
I'd *much* rather have the person express what they're actually thinking, so I can judge their views as needed. If the person really is a neoNazi white supremacist, I want to know that via hearing from the person themselves. Best disinfectant is sunlight.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 06:19 pm (UTC)I feel like "Trump is president" should be an object lesson in the virtues of a limited government that can't do much and especially CAN'T DO MUCH HARM but unfortunately, this does not seem to have persuaded anyone but people who already leaned libertarian. :/
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 08:06 pm (UTC)I'm still working on what to do with violence in the process of social change. History tells me that violent revolutions often result in riots and chaos and Thermidor and firing squads and military coups, and I don't think that we're anywhere near in a position bad enough that that looks better. But I see BLM protesters responding to criticism of "don't be so loud and angry" by pointing out that no one pays attention when they're not angry, which is a valid societal critique and certainly something that I'm not in a good position to judge for, especially when most of the time I'm too busy or too tired or too whatever to get out of my nice little patch of privilege and go march.
There was a panel on The Broken Earth at Arisia, which was in many ways excellent, but one of the panelists critiqued the book as not being hopeful based on a definition of hopeful that required movement towards (or a possibility of? don't remember) a change of heart on the part of the oppressors, and he didn't like that there wasn't any. And my reaction to that was to wonder where everyone else's agency was if the only hope is for the oppressors to have a change of heart. (And also to feel like dude was kind of missing the point if he thought those books were about the emotional arcs of the people at the top of the pecking order.)
It's something I think about as a writer. Our narratives resolve so much around violence. Killing the evil wizard. Blowing up the enemy spaceship. Executing the usurper. Destroying the alien invaders. And don't get me wrong, I like a good violence-story as much as anyone. But it's not the kind of conflict resolution that I want to promote. And killing off the big bad seems like a much easier way to an emotionally satisfying plot than something that doesn't hinge on violence, especially if I want something that's a fun romp rather than a preachy treatise.
*I know that sounds weird. But my religion tells me that violence is wrong, and I agree, and I would still believe that violence was not a good way to solve problems even if I were not religious, so: moral and religious grounds.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 08:25 pm (UTC)I so hear you about not wanting to promote "kill the bad guy" as the ideal form conflict resolution. I wrote The Moon Etherium and The Sun Etherium both because I wanted stories where the good guys do not win by killing the bad guys. The tidy narrative where heroes kill people because they're bad people and that's all they can ever be is viscerally gratifying but I do not think it is true to life. Real people do not divide nearly so neatly into "good" and "evil". The point at which we decide a large fraction of the population is "evil" and can only be stopped by killing them is also the point at which we consign a large fraction of the population on "our" side to death, too. Because the people we decided are evil are not going to just lie down quietly and die because we decided they need to die. In the real world, this is not a story that ends neatly and happily.
On a somewhat-related note: one of the reasons I was deeply disappointed by the film version of V for Vendetta is that the film turned it into a standard "evil people do evil things and are stopped by good guys killing them". While the original graphic novel was about "why normal, ordinary people do evil things". It is about the banality of evil, about how people who think of themselves as decent human beings can be convinced that utterly repugnant things are justified. Its message was "IT CAN HAPPEN HERE", and I feel like that is such an important message. That if we don't understand how we, ourselves, can become Nazi supporters or fascists or authoritarians, that if we keep thinking it's only a thing that "evil people who are not like us" could do, then we are way more likely to end up on the wrong side of the Apocalypse. v_v
no subject
Date: 2017-01-22 08:37 pm (UTC)Oooh, I haven't read/watched V for Vendetta, but that reminds me of the other thing I was going to say: the people on my Twitter timeline posting "life under authoritarian regimes is okay for most people" stuff were definitely doing it from a place of pointing out that you don't wake up one morning and discover that it is now We Are Living In A YA Dystopia Day -- it just happens gradually, bit by bit, and your life changes in subtle ways until at some point you're there and didn't notice, but it's not so bad after all, is it? That there's not going to be a watershed moment where you can stand up and put your atheist/agnostic/Christian/Jewish/whatever self down as Muslim on the religious registration form, and you probably won't even realize the registration has happened unless you have Muslim friends who talk about it. I'm sorry that those nuances were getting lost in your Twitter feed. But then, Twitter's not really very good at nuance, is it? And I say that as someone who's definitely guilty of checking (and posting to) Twitter more than LJ.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 10:53 pm (UTC)I am glad to hear you are reading TME, behind or otherwise! Today's installment is one of my favorite parts. ♥
no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-23 11:39 pm (UTC)