@jlcrawf Any time I see the phrase "any means" I get nervous 😟 There is no left and right, there is only the interests of the elites and those of everyone else.
@jlcrawf I'm not espousing any personal views about the far right, the far left, or Islam. I was only pointing out the similarities in some of the sentiments and rhetoric I see in social media today to those I saw in the aughts for the War on Terror and those I wasn't alive for but read about in the 1950s for the Cold War. All in the context of how similar thinking was used to justify the abuses documented in that book.
Hmm, ok. I misunderstood a bit, I guess. Let me know what you think of the book once your done.
@tga @jlcrawf Straw man. One diff between a govt. and a private group targeting minorities is that the govt. has more power and resources to bear. Of course companies are starting to wield quasi-govt power so if a private group can get help from them then they also start to have a similar level of power.
But the original point was to highlight the ethical risks involved in dehumanizing and extreme rhetoric, regardless of the target. If one has greater power, it just increases scope of abuse.
It isn't a straw man if it's your argument. E.g., why the focus on anti-nazi social media, and not gab, which certainly wins on the "dehumanizing and extreme rhetoric" front? The battles we choose reflect our desires, and if your battles don't focus on addressing power dynamics, then they are bound to reinforce them.
@tga yup there's certainly plenty of dehumanizing and extreme rhetoric there too. It all leads to justifying more extreme behavior in the minds of those who buy in.