Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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?

Think more critically: if you’re trying to stop a radical you first have to de-radicalize him/her and for that to ever work you need to understand their mental framework, thus understanding the rules they are playing buy, this however does not imply accepting them.

By*