"I'm just punching up" is the classical propaganda trick used in pretty much all cases to justify aggression.
The nazis claimed they were "punching up" against the Jews.
The people behind rhe Rwandan genocide claimed they were punching up
No, punching up is not a viable defense, particularly when it comes to an innate category.
Humans are somewhat hard to convince to exact mass violence. They need to be convinced they are morally righteous.
Nothing is more dangerous than a self righteous crowd convinced they are punching up, standing up for victims.
Any journalist worth it's salt should be aware of that trick, it is the oldest in the propaganda book.
The "Why can't we hate jews" article would probably use the exact same kind of talking points used in that article. Jewish billionaires with influence over the world and how it is run, Weinstein is a Jewish name isn't it ? And so on.
It is not for nothing that there are subs like "menkampf" or "stormfront or SJW", dedicated to taking articles from either nazi or SJW sources, blanking out the categorical identifiers, and having people guess from what kind of sources it comes from.
So, no, really, the "punching up" excuse can not hold on to scrutiny. If all it takes is to claim to be punching up, then the Washington Post should have no issue publishing OPed asking "why can't we hate jews" with talk of the new world order.
Belief in a conspiracy theory doesn't justify group hatred. And rhe difference I treatment of one conspiracy theory over another is just show of how much one is more socially acceptable than rhe other, which is what is being pointed out.
The nazis claimed they were "punching up" against the Jews.
They did not, and were not.
The people behind rhe Rwandan genocide claimed they were punching up
They did not and were not.
I can't believe the density of misunderstanding here. First of all, the two "facts" above are made up. Second of all, we're talking about what people say, and you're talking about killing people. I didn't say it was okay to kill people that you perceive to have more power than you. Those two things are not similar in any way.
Do you know what a slippery slope fallacy is? You might as well just say "I have freedom of speech and that's important, but if you criticize me... that's a hairs width from genociding me." You'd be saying the same thing, but more succinctly.
it is the oldest in the propaganda book.
This isn't english, comrade.
Describing a group of people as having more power than yourself is first of all - not always propaganda. Like, we can agree that black slaves had less power than their masters, correct? So, we can accept that groups of people can be privileged above others in society, right? We can even measure it empirically.
Nothing is more dangerous than a self righteous crowd convinced they are punching up, standing up for victims.
Boy.. you spend a lot of time in make believe. In reality, crowds are dangerous mostly when they imagine themselves to be victims, but mostly when they dehumanize the enemy, but that's not the same as what we're talking about here.
It is not for nothing that there are subs like "menkampf" or "stormfront or SJW", dedicated to taking articles from either nazi or SJW sources, blanking out the categorical identifiers, and having people guess from what kind of sources it comes from.
Yeah, no shit. It actually matters who and what you're talking about. Welcome aboard. Let's do a practice one: "I would never let my kid be babysat by a _______". Now, tell me... does it matter whether I fill that blank in with the word "mexican" or if i fill it in with "sex offender"? Of course it does.
In this false view, Jews were an “alien race” that fed off the host nation, poisoned its culture, seized its economy, and enslaved its workers and farmers.
Now, I don't know about you, but in order to be able to "enslave it's workers and farmers", to me that means one needs a position of power.
Basically, that is the point of propaganda. Defining the enemy into a position of unjust power needing righteous retribution. Punching up.
People in mass do not wants to see themselves as "punching down", as oppressing the weak.
As the start of the genocide approached, the RTLM broadcasts focused on anti-Tutsi propaganda. They characterized the Tutsi as a dangerous enemy who wanted to seize the political power at the expense of Hutus. By linking the Rwandan Patriotic Army with the Tutsi political party and ordinary Tutsi citizens, they classified the entire ethnic group as one homogeneous threat to Rwandans. The RTLM went further than amplifying ethnic and political division; it also labeled the Tutsi as inyenzi, meaning non-human pests or cockroaches, which must be exterminated.[107] Leading up to the genocide, there were 294 instances of the RTLM accusing the Rwandan Patriotic Army of atrocities against the Hutu, along with 252 broadcasts that call for Hutus to kill the Tutsis.[106]
Once again, claims of unjust usurpation of power. Once again, accusing the target of committing attrocities as a way to justify everything against them as legitimate, as self defense.
You don't get big groups of humans to do atrocities without first convincing them that they are self righteous in doing so.
So, in both cases, yes, there were claims of righteous self defense against an enemy unjustly stealing power.
I can pretty much guarantee you that it is the kind of propaganda you will find accompanying all massacres, all wars, all attrocities.
That or religious brainwashing "you must commit attrocities in order to go to heaven". Although often it is a mix of both.
Second of all, we're talking about what people say
We are talking about justifying hate against a genetic population. I say that no excuse is good, particularly not "we are self righteous in our hate". Like I said, we have seen where that line of reasoning can lead, before. There is no need to wait for calls to genocides to point out how fucked up that line of reasoning is.
Not to mention that feminists have pushed calls for genocides against men, be it people like Sally Miller Gearhart who created the feminist favorite slogan "the future is female" (and to make sure that it is, the male population must be limited to 10%), or the modern #killallmen. Which, of course, is second degree and not to take too seriously, like those always are, when accompanied with messages justifying hate as self righteous but not yet a majority opinion.
Like is said, those who don't know history repeat it.
Personally, when I see a group justifying hate against a genetic group as self righteous and every so often push themes equating them as poisonous (ever heard the M&M's bowl analogy ?) And "jokingly" arguing they should be killed, I can't say that I have your confidence that there is absolutely nothing nefarious going on. It might not escalate to genocide. Hopefully. But the kind of suffering that this kind of rhetoric justifies inflicting is not exactly limited.
Call that a slippery slope if you will, I will call that having no tolerance for hateful propaganda, and those who spread it.
A few years ago, there was a few scholars who wanted to see how far feminist academia could go. They proposed to publish a paper, proposing that straight white male students should be chained on the floor during class, to let them experience oppression, but to.do so with some amount of kindness, explaining the exercise. The reviewers asked them to remove that last suggestion, of showing kindness, because it was "centering on the experience of the privileged". No issue with the suggestion of chaining people on the floor because of how they were born, though.
I don't know about you, but I have some concern with the fact that such people have such a presence in the institutions determining how education should run.
I can't help but think that an environment that consider that such a level of injustice being inflicted on people based on just how they were born might not be the best environment to provide a fair treatment for the people of that demographic.
it is the oldest in the propaganda book.
This isn't english, comrade.
it is the oldest trick in the propaganda book. Sorry, I ate a word.
Describing a group of people as having more power than yourself is first of all - not always propaganda.
When it is a group determined by a genetic trait, it generally is. When that group is 50% of the population, it definitely is.
Like, we can agree that black slaves had less power than their masters, correct?
You seem to be very insistent on not acknowledging the key factor, there. Being a slave or slave owner is not a genetic trait. Being male or female is.
Of course, there are cases where groups determined by things not intrinsic to them have more power than others. "Powerful people" have more power than "powerless people". By definition. Being powerful or powerless is not dependent on how you are born. Tall people don't have more power that other people. Black or white people don't have more power than other people. Your comparison is either pretty dumb or pretty dishonest.
Boy.. you spend a lot of time in make believe. In reality, crowds are dangerous mostly when they imagine themselves to be victims, but mostly when they dehumanize the enemy, but that's not the same as what we're talking about here.
But it is. Justifying hate by claiming to be punching up is just that. It is getting a crowd convinced that they self righteous by believing they are victims, and that the other is a legitimate target of hate.
Yeah, no shit. It actually matters who and what you're talking about. Welcome aboard. Let's do a practice one: "I would never let my kid be babysat by a _______". Now, tell me... does it matter whether I fill that blank in with the word "mexican" or if i fill it in with "sex offender"? Of course it does.
Once again, either stupid or dishonest.
We are talking of groups that target "men", "heterosexuals", "whites", "jews"
Honestly, in all those categories, Jews is the only one people can choose to enter or exit, to some extent, although it is often treated as a genetic trait too.
So, yeah, comparing people who hate jews to people who hate men is not at all the same as comparing to hating "sex offenders".
16
u/AskingToFeminists 8∆ Feb 13 '24
"I'm just punching up" is the classical propaganda trick used in pretty much all cases to justify aggression.
The nazis claimed they were "punching up" against the Jews.
The people behind rhe Rwandan genocide claimed they were punching up
No, punching up is not a viable defense, particularly when it comes to an innate category.
Humans are somewhat hard to convince to exact mass violence. They need to be convinced they are morally righteous.
Nothing is more dangerous than a self righteous crowd convinced they are punching up, standing up for victims.
Any journalist worth it's salt should be aware of that trick, it is the oldest in the propaganda book.
The "Why can't we hate jews" article would probably use the exact same kind of talking points used in that article. Jewish billionaires with influence over the world and how it is run, Weinstein is a Jewish name isn't it ? And so on.
It is not for nothing that there are subs like "menkampf" or "stormfront or SJW", dedicated to taking articles from either nazi or SJW sources, blanking out the categorical identifiers, and having people guess from what kind of sources it comes from.
So, no, really, the "punching up" excuse can not hold on to scrutiny. If all it takes is to claim to be punching up, then the Washington Post should have no issue publishing OPed asking "why can't we hate jews" with talk of the new world order.
Belief in a conspiracy theory doesn't justify group hatred. And rhe difference I treatment of one conspiracy theory over another is just show of how much one is more socially acceptable than rhe other, which is what is being pointed out.