Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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?

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.

I never implied that you were in favor of punching innocent bystanders. I'm deeply confused about what modeling this as a game buys you in contexts where it's clear that some participants are not playing consensually & thus can't influence the rules.

We can walk back their reasoning and formulate an effective counter message, if indeed they’re playing a game with a fixed set of rules (assuming we can figure out what are they).

Isn’t this entire debate about Antifa and their supporters saying, “we say Andy isn’t a journalist (and is thus, somehow, fair game)”? Why on earth would you assume their rules are fixed or allow masked thugs to decide the rules in the first place?