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 referring to the collection of ideas most groups of people who identity as Antifa hold, and accept. In your example it’s the agreement (notion...) you can identify someone as fascist if they disagree with Antifa. The resulting violence is the symptom, and not what I refering.
I'm just saying that "I'm allowed to hit people who disagree with me because I'm on the side of righteousness" doesn't imply much of a framework, and I'm not sure there is one. There might just be a lot of testosterone & a group willing to give you status for beating people up.
-
-
I think there might be confusion around the fact that a LOT of games are simulated violence — and, arguably, some limited violence can be simulated full-scale violence. A boxing match, say. But if everyone is taking swings and nobody knows the rules? Maybe that's just violence.
-
I think it might be an aspect of understanding the mindset of the people committing it. As a child (and Antifa are children) I often played one directional violent games. 'Can I make them cry without being caught?' sort of games. Othertimes I was in fights. There is a difference
- Show replies
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.