> The only thing that aligns it with the pogroms is the involvement of physical violence--and even then, I'd suspect most people would plot 'punch in the arm' closer to 'annoyingly loud music' than to 'mass murder' on the scale of harms.
A friend of mine recently suffered a concussion after being p...(read more)
I don't think "aboutness" is really a helpful concept here. Strategies might be implemented by minds that don't fully understand the strategy.
I don't see what's asymmetric about the 'no punch back' rule at all
Why would getting to punch other people be compensation for being punched, then? In what way is someone who doesn't enjoy that deriving a benefit from it?
Is it hard for you to imagine that some people might not be violent sadists?
Raemon was criticizing my rhetoric, specifically distinguishing that from a criticism of my argument, and claiming I could make the same argument a different way. I'm saying, no, this is actually how I figured out the thing, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Just to make sure we have complete clarity around exactly what words seemed outside the bounds of acceptable discourse here to Raemon, my original unedited comment began:
> As a Jew, I'm very worried about people unilaterally claiming the right to initiate physical violence against me with impunity...(read more)
As another person who's worked in finance, I endorse this analysis completely.
I'm saying something sort of like 2, but the specific thing I'm saying _is_ the thing you're asking me not to say, so I'm in something of a double bind.
The creation of an implied "we" who are to unaccountably administer violence to a minority defined by a strong preference for rule-following, and ...(read more)