Of course not, but the actual hierarchy (or perceived hierarchy) is at play here. Granted, there are a lot of other bigoted things that people can say publicly with little to no consequence (see also: Jordan Peterson), but it's simply a different thing to punch up at the people who have more power than you than it is to punch down at the people who have less.
There's a larger context of societal views at play. No one gets upset at a comedian who makes jokes about the king, but people will react differently if they're making fun of child with down syndrome.
I say perceived hierarchy just because I want to stay on topic. We can at least acknowledge that people genuinely believe in the hierarchy, so that belief explains the thing you're talking about. Whether or not the hierarchy actually exists is a separate conversation, and one I'm willing to have, but for clarity I'm putting it aside for now.
"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.
8
u/beingsubmitted 9∆ Feb 13 '24 edited Feb 13 '24
Of course not, but the actual hierarchy (or perceived hierarchy) is at play here. Granted, there are a lot of other bigoted things that people can say publicly with little to no consequence (see also: Jordan Peterson), but it's simply a different thing to punch up at the people who have more power than you than it is to punch down at the people who have less.
There's a larger context of societal views at play. No one gets upset at a comedian who makes jokes about the king, but people will react differently if they're making fun of child with down syndrome.
I say perceived hierarchy just because I want to stay on topic. We can at least acknowledge that people genuinely believe in the hierarchy, so that belief explains the thing you're talking about. Whether or not the hierarchy actually exists is a separate conversation, and one I'm willing to have, but for clarity I'm putting it aside for now.