Do we need to talk about how "civil discussion" is itself a dogwhistle?
The idea that "discussion" questioning whether people who aren't white cis men have a right to work in games without threats and harassment, that there's any QUESTION there, is legitimate is already uncivil.
The idea that "discussion" questioning whether people who aren't white cis men have a right to work in games without threats and harassment, that there's any QUESTION there, is legitimate is already uncivil.
I mean, fine, let's talk about it.
The idea that we should have "civil discussion" with people advocating for the exclusion/persecution/death of others based on arbitrary characteristics like gender/race/sexual orientation/etc. is how the Overton window gets moved.
The idea that we should have "civil discussion" with people advocating for the exclusion/persecution/death of others based on arbitrary characteristics like gender/race/sexual orientation/etc. is how the Overton window gets moved.
The idea that it's okay for white people to sit around over cocktails and idly debate whether people of color are fully human, or men to sip brandy and talk about whether women have souls, is itself violent.
The idea of casually questioning whether other people are fully human and should have basic human rights SHOULD be immediately repulsive--and absurd--to anyone who isn't a bigot.
But the supposed intellectualization of it, the fetishization of the idea that being willing to "calmly discuss" any idea, is somehow a sign of superiority is the basic tool of fascism.
"Look," it says. "We're not actually ADVOCATING for wiping out the Jews. But if you're a superior brand of human, you're not afraid to discuss the idea--just as theory! Your superiority is manifest in how you don't get emotional about these things, how you're open-minded."
A humane society--or an ethical individual human being--isn't interested in discussing genocide. There's no discussion to be had about it. The answer is "No," followed by "Why the fuck would you even want to discuss anything but STOPPING it?"
The allure of the supposed intellectual superiority--and control over one's emotions--demonstrated by being able to discuss these things "calmly" and "rationally," is how fascism nudges you away from the idea of completely rejecting its ultimate goal.
Normalizing discussion of "okay, but what if the hate group has a point?" makes it okay to publicly air views that by all rights SHOULD get you utterly rejected from society. It preys on the idea of politeness and civility to intellectualize hate.
And intellectualizing hate, making it a purely theoretical problem, taking the emotion out of it, is part and parcel of dehumanizing--or even erasing entirely--its victims.
Which is how we get here: abcnews.go.com/Politics/28-ap…
The strategy that gets them there is making hate Not Scary. Through intellectualizing it--"it's just a theory, let's have a civil discussion!"--and selling it as playfully ironic--"we're not serious, we're only doing it for the lulz!" It's intentional. huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-st…
The "civil discussion" is designed to A) waste your time, B) desensitize you to fascist/genocidal views, and C) give their ideas a veneer of respectability. That request for civil discussion is not being made in good faith.
And that's why you don't engage in "civil discussion" about this stuff. There's no discussion to be had. They're not new ideas. We've heard them before, and rejected them. The answer is no. theestablishment.co/why-punching-n…
