GeniesLoki

and i think at the core of all this is two things 1. people think what they're doing is not abusive 2. people feel that the abuse is justified

3. people are really good at lying themselves saying what they're doing is not abusive/justified

which is to say, as the NYT and others so aptly put it a while back: everything is game​rg​ate now

My working theory is something along the lines of: 1. People think conflict justifies abuse when it's "punching up" 2. People think that broad commentary directed at a privileged group is intrinsically punching up.

I can sortof buy (1) in some special cases. e.g. I think there are a lot of cases of legitimate power struggle where many things I'd otherwise consider not OK become if not ideal at least justifiable. (2) is just false though.

3. punching up can still be abusive

here's the thing though: i don't really know the solution. like, i can talk hours about all this and i've done it and still am happy to but at the end me and whoever i'm talking with always arrive at the same conclusion: discourse is utterly broken and we don't know the fix.

and that, is what's really frustrating me about all this.