GeniesLoki

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

Yeah, I agree. I just think this behaviour isn't punching up by any reasonable definition of the term.

yeah no i agree. like many other things (i'm looking at you, "privilege", "emotional labor" etc.) the meaning and interpretation of it shifted and morphed over time and not necesarily in a good way

Yeah. I think they've all morphed into a more easily weaponised form, and I think part of that is that they became concepts that men weren't really allowed to engage with in good faith. Actually *using* feminist concepts as a man is often treated as an act of aggression.