In the last two days I've been called an "amplifier" of "fascism" for: 1) saying that people should not be beaten for their speech 2) saying that antifa is likely contributing to support for authoritarianism I'm not "playing" a "sport." If someone hits me, I did not ask for it.
-
That’s correct. But the person hitting you is playing a sport. A very bad one.
At what point do we stop understanding it as a "sport"? When I'm begging him to stop? When he gropes me? When he rapes me? When he kills me? What is the utility in understanding this as a game, at each of these points?
-
-
I'm not being flippant — the point of sport is that it's organized, that there are rules to which all parties agree. If only one team is playing football, you do not have a game of football. If you drop all that to call this a sport, I don't see why rape or execution can't be
-
FWIW, I'm not against people fighting for fun. I've known a lot of perfectly fine guys that like to spar. Maybe what's going on in the UK really is as consensual as Geoffrey's interviewee describes it. But that is absolutely not what's going on in e.g. the videos from Portland.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There might be some benefit in predicting behavior if his premise is correct. To treat it as a form of literal LARP where they are playing a game might make it easier to dismiss or manipulate the outcome. Perhaps telling them you are serious and not playing is a way to opt out.
-
Thank you for being the one person who understood the point. Everyone else hallucinated that I was in favor of punching innocent bystanders and whatnot.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
See the mid-90s vegan straightedge hardcore punk scene for some clues.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.