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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
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
-
Extreme violence with no rules that takes place in a public space where there are possible bystanders is not a sport: it's dangerous and not something I'd ever want to allow happen in a civilized society.
End of conversation
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
-
-
-
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.
-
I'm not sure I buy into the premise though, just gaming out his idea. Mostly I just see them as a territorial hazard and under certain circumstances a direct threat. I don't think the sport aspect helps me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.