Meanness is part of society and so is this false notion of general intellect, which we cannot measure. Falsely championing disabled people and pretending targeted meanness isn’t effective when we all saw how calling specific fascists weird was effective isn’t an honest argument. Neither is hiding behind theory used as a straw man.
If Tim Walz had delivered a compelling argument about how fascism is self-destructive it wouldn’t have resonated with people the way weird did. People saw clips of JD Vance, they heard about the couch fucking, and weird resonated with them. Know who usually gets called weird and by who? Queer people by fascists. Did calling specific fascists weird bother queer people? No, because we’re weird and proud of it. Unlike the fascists who cling to a false sense of normalcy for the sake of their ego, queer people want to be themselves.
The reason this works is because it was targeted. Weird isn’t any more normalized against queer people than it was before Tim Walz used it. Calling specific fascists dumb isn’t going to normalize ableism even by using slurs. Which again using slurs may not even be the must useful rhetoric in any given scenario. But if a person finds themselves in a scenario where they can use slurs, even those that normally target queer people generally, to defend queer people effectively I would appreciate it if they did. The same way I would appreciate someone using violence to defend me effectively in a self-defense scenario.
Fascists aren’t going around telling us to be more mean. They would love for leftists to keep being nice no matter what and to cling to this obsession with moral purity because it renders us ineffective. Using a rhetorically effective word, phrase, or mannerism against a specific target isn’t any more reactionary than saying queer people should organize and arm themselves.
If leftists can’t get passed this obsession with moral purity it’s going to get us all killed. We aren’t going to be able to communicate effectively to our peers and other people in general in person or online. The fascists will mop the floor with us in their messaging. They’re willing to be mean to get what they want. Choosing an always share, rhetorically pacifist strategy is the same as choosing to be complicit in our own destruction.
The way leftists cling to moral purity is the same way that fascists cling to normalcy. It’s about leftists’ egos. Leftists don’t like the idea of being morally wrong. It’s why leftists couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite it being the useful strategy. And it’s why leftists can’t bring themselves to use slurs or abelist language or be mean against specific fascists who want to kill neurodivergent and queer people.
Killing people is wrong, but in some circumstances it is necessary. Being mean and using inappropriate language is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. If everyone on one side of war is a pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. If everyone on one side of a culture war is a rhetorical pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. Refusing to say certain words in certain contexts isn’t protecting the neurdivergent or queer communities. It’s protecting leftists’ egos that depend on always being able to see a pair of clean hands.
If leftists actually care about marginalized groups then leftists should be willing to use the most effective strategies to defeat the fascists who want to kill those groups. Otherwise leftists should be honest with those marginalized groups and say they are only willing to give them token support because that’s what makes those leftists feel good about themselves. If leftists value their moral purity more than peoples lives then leftists should tell those communities that. That way those communities can find real allies who are willing to put people before their egos.
The normalisation of words like ‘stupid’ does have real life consequences to people with learning disabilities. Any time you use that word or similar words, you are not only insulting the person it’s directed at, but you’re also insulting all people with a learning disability by insinuating that they are in some way inferior, because according to you their disability is an insult in and of itself. You will not gain any sympathy from the disabled community by normalising those words. You’re pushing them away and throwing them under the bus to be targeted first.
‘Weird’ is not an equivalent word because it doesn’t define a group of people in the same way. Walz’s usage of the word ‘weird’ wasn’t to insult transphobes. It was a correct assessment that republicans are way too interested in controlling the personal lives of trans people in a way that most people would (and should) be weirded out by. It’s weird (and creepy) to find a stranger in your bedroom in the same way that it’s weird (and creepy) to have a stranger tell you how you should dress, behave and look. It’s an argument that has substance, compared to the empty argument of saying that a transphobe person is of ‘low intelligence’, especially when that’s often not even the source of their transphobia.
Substantive arguments are always better than non substantive ‘mean’ arguments as you call them. You’re not arguing to convince a nazi, you’re arguing to convince a bystander that a nazi is dangerous. A bystander needs an actual reason to be convinced, not a few mean words.
You claim a lot about antifascist strategy but your claims are not supported by historical evidence. The strongest antifascist factions have always been those that seek unity within oppressed groups. Tailism just leads to division.
The normalisation of words like ‘stupid’ does have real life consequences to people with learning disabilities.
Targeted meanness doesn’t normalize the specific words used so that is not a relevant concern. Again, no one but the targeted fascists were offended by the usage of weird. Usages of the word weird haven’t exploded against queer people. By being mean to intolerant people we are defending the people those intolerant people want to kill. By refusing to be mean we would be abandoning the targeted out-groups. It is trivial to differentiate between using a word as a rhetorical tool in specific situations and dismissing its use in general discourse. It is in fact insulting to marginalized groups to insinuate they would not understand this.
‘Weird’ is not an equivalent word because it doesn’t define a group of people in the same way. Walz’s usage of the word ‘weird’ wasn’t to insult transphobes.
It definitely insulted them. Trump and Vance did not know how to handle being called weird. Weird is most certainly equivalent to words like dumb and stupid in terms of meanness.
compared to the empty argument of saying that a transphobe person is of ‘low intelligence’, especially when that’s often not even the source of their transphobia.
The use case of insulting a fascists intelligence would be different than calling them weird. Any given word is not going to be effective in every hypothetical scenario. Weird was the correct choice in Tim Walz’s case during the election. Calling fascists stupid can be the correct choice in others.
Substantive arguments are always better than non substantive ‘mean’ arguments as you call them.
The fact this is wrong is self-evident. We could of course not fit this discussion effectively into character limited messages or sound bites in a debate. The way we even get people to read these arguments is to first win these rhetorical battles. And even then not everyone is going to have time read these kind of discussions. If we rely on these kind of long form arguments to the exclusion of all other forms of communication and rhetoric then we will lose to the fascists.
A bystander needs an actual reason to be convinced, not a few mean words.
This is exactly what any given bystander needs in the fast paced social media discourse we have today. A person having someone tell them a fascist is wrong in a few short words that have a negative connotation because they are mean is how people are socialized. We don’t have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge and act on reality if we want to continue to live in reality.
You claim a lot about antifascist strategy but your claims are not supported by historical evidence.
The strongest antifascist factions have always been those that seek unity within oppressed groups.
Nothing about using rhetoric to defend people is divisive. The same way violence in self-defense is not divisive. Throwing minority groups under the bus for the sake of moral purity is peak divisiveness.
Tailism just leads to division.
I’m not arguing for your argument’s straw man so this isn’t an issue.
Al you arguments are based on claims that are guesses or just plainly untrue. This not not a serious discussion. It makes sense that your sources and ‘experiences’ come from vaush and twitter. Touch grass, talk to some experienced antifascist activists and maybe read some books.
Edit: and maybe reach out to a disabled community (in a respectful manner) to learn about how ableist language impacts them.
Meanness is part of society and so is this false notion of general intellect, which we cannot measure. Falsely championing disabled people and pretending targeted meanness isn’t effective when we all saw how calling specific fascists weird was effective isn’t an honest argument. Neither is hiding behind theory used as a straw man.
If Tim Walz had delivered a compelling argument about how fascism is self-destructive it wouldn’t have resonated with people the way weird did. People saw clips of JD Vance, they heard about the couch fucking, and weird resonated with them. Know who usually gets called weird and by who? Queer people by fascists. Did calling specific fascists weird bother queer people? No, because we’re weird and proud of it. Unlike the fascists who cling to a false sense of normalcy for the sake of their ego, queer people want to be themselves.
The reason this works is because it was targeted. Weird isn’t any more normalized against queer people than it was before Tim Walz used it. Calling specific fascists dumb isn’t going to normalize ableism even by using slurs. Which again using slurs may not even be the must useful rhetoric in any given scenario. But if a person finds themselves in a scenario where they can use slurs, even those that normally target queer people generally, to defend queer people effectively I would appreciate it if they did. The same way I would appreciate someone using violence to defend me effectively in a self-defense scenario.
Fascists aren’t going around telling us to be more mean. They would love for leftists to keep being nice no matter what and to cling to this obsession with moral purity because it renders us ineffective. Using a rhetorically effective word, phrase, or mannerism against a specific target isn’t any more reactionary than saying queer people should organize and arm themselves.
If leftists can’t get passed this obsession with moral purity it’s going to get us all killed. We aren’t going to be able to communicate effectively to our peers and other people in general in person or online. The fascists will mop the floor with us in their messaging. They’re willing to be mean to get what they want. Choosing an always share, rhetorically pacifist strategy is the same as choosing to be complicit in our own destruction.
The way leftists cling to moral purity is the same way that fascists cling to normalcy. It’s about leftists’ egos. Leftists don’t like the idea of being morally wrong. It’s why leftists couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite it being the useful strategy. And it’s why leftists can’t bring themselves to use slurs or abelist language or be mean against specific fascists who want to kill neurodivergent and queer people.
Killing people is wrong, but in some circumstances it is necessary. Being mean and using inappropriate language is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. If everyone on one side of war is a pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. If everyone on one side of a culture war is a rhetorical pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. Refusing to say certain words in certain contexts isn’t protecting the neurdivergent or queer communities. It’s protecting leftists’ egos that depend on always being able to see a pair of clean hands.
If leftists actually care about marginalized groups then leftists should be willing to use the most effective strategies to defeat the fascists who want to kill those groups. Otherwise leftists should be honest with those marginalized groups and say they are only willing to give them token support because that’s what makes those leftists feel good about themselves. If leftists value their moral purity more than peoples lives then leftists should tell those communities that. That way those communities can find real allies who are willing to put people before their egos.
The normalisation of words like ‘stupid’ does have real life consequences to people with learning disabilities. Any time you use that word or similar words, you are not only insulting the person it’s directed at, but you’re also insulting all people with a learning disability by insinuating that they are in some way inferior, because according to you their disability is an insult in and of itself. You will not gain any sympathy from the disabled community by normalising those words. You’re pushing them away and throwing them under the bus to be targeted first.
‘Weird’ is not an equivalent word because it doesn’t define a group of people in the same way. Walz’s usage of the word ‘weird’ wasn’t to insult transphobes. It was a correct assessment that republicans are way too interested in controlling the personal lives of trans people in a way that most people would (and should) be weirded out by. It’s weird (and creepy) to find a stranger in your bedroom in the same way that it’s weird (and creepy) to have a stranger tell you how you should dress, behave and look. It’s an argument that has substance, compared to the empty argument of saying that a transphobe person is of ‘low intelligence’, especially when that’s often not even the source of their transphobia.
Substantive arguments are always better than non substantive ‘mean’ arguments as you call them. You’re not arguing to convince a nazi, you’re arguing to convince a bystander that a nazi is dangerous. A bystander needs an actual reason to be convinced, not a few mean words.
You claim a lot about antifascist strategy but your claims are not supported by historical evidence. The strongest antifascist factions have always been those that seek unity within oppressed groups. Tailism just leads to division.
Targeted meanness doesn’t normalize the specific words used so that is not a relevant concern. Again, no one but the targeted fascists were offended by the usage of weird. Usages of the word weird haven’t exploded against queer people. By being mean to intolerant people we are defending the people those intolerant people want to kill. By refusing to be mean we would be abandoning the targeted out-groups. It is trivial to differentiate between using a word as a rhetorical tool in specific situations and dismissing its use in general discourse. It is in fact insulting to marginalized groups to insinuate they would not understand this.
It definitely insulted them. Trump and Vance did not know how to handle being called weird. Weird is most certainly equivalent to words like dumb and stupid in terms of meanness.
The use case of insulting a fascists intelligence would be different than calling them weird. Any given word is not going to be effective in every hypothetical scenario. Weird was the correct choice in Tim Walz’s case during the election. Calling fascists stupid can be the correct choice in others.
The fact this is wrong is self-evident. We could of course not fit this discussion effectively into character limited messages or sound bites in a debate. The way we even get people to read these arguments is to first win these rhetorical battles. And even then not everyone is going to have time read these kind of discussions. If we rely on these kind of long form arguments to the exclusion of all other forms of communication and rhetoric then we will lose to the fascists.
This is exactly what any given bystander needs in the fast paced social media discourse we have today. A person having someone tell them a fascist is wrong in a few short words that have a negative connotation because they are mean is how people are socialized. We don’t have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge and act on reality if we want to continue to live in reality.
My argument’s claims are in fact based on historical evidence. Two of the examples in my argument were from real twitter discourse. Here’s the Vaush video, but it contains abelist language, so only watch it if learning how to defeat fascism is worth violating personal sensibilities. The other example being Tim Walz, which refers to the last election cycle that just happened.
Nothing about using rhetoric to defend people is divisive. The same way violence in self-defense is not divisive. Throwing minority groups under the bus for the sake of moral purity is peak divisiveness.
I’m not arguing for your argument’s straw man so this isn’t an issue.
Al you arguments are based on claims that are guesses or just plainly untrue. This not not a serious discussion. It makes sense that your sources and ‘experiences’ come from vaush and twitter. Touch grass, talk to some experienced antifascist activists and maybe read some books.
Edit: and maybe reach out to a disabled community (in a respectful manner) to learn about how ableist language impacts them.