That is true, but there are certain "red flags" that you will hear from most abusers. In the case of governments one of those is "we do it for social justice [not normal justice]".
While there are certainly abusers out there that relish it, (likely in most of the worst cases) I think you'll find that many who commit undeniable abuse don't do it for any sort of joy. They would describe their motivations as being good or an unfortunate necessity–sometimes even altruistic. Abuse is a complicated thing and many who mete it out were, or are, themselves victims of abuse.
Not trying to detract from your overall point, just thought it was worth noting.
I think I was too indirect earlier. Your charge is that I failed to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says".
But the argument I responded to was literally:
>I still think the vast majority of this concern over abuse is a red herring though. People just don't like it when their curated bubble is pierced by information that contradicts it, and they confuse being corrected with persecution and social status games.
Which boils down to the poster accusing people who claim they are being abused of doing it for social status, which is in essence a criticism of the weakest form of their argument. So you seem to be applying this guideline pretty inconsistently. Are you implicitly supporting the previous claim by calling out my rebuttal and not the post I was replying to? It certainly looks that way Dang.
agreed. I think it's something that all people should be aware of as it's a huge red flag for abusers, but people have overused it so much it basically just means "being an asshole" or "lying"
Only if you accept that the system itself is moral. If you think it's an oppressive power structure that violently conquered traditional, small scale communities and forced them to live under its thumb, I think there's nothing wrong with abusing the abuser.
In a world of intellectual purity and abstraction, yes, that is the case.
In the real world, it can be used as a fig leaf to justify a variety of abusive behaviors. For some people, that encompasses the whole of their experiences.
As someone not previously involved in this thread, it doesn't read that way to me. Abuse is one of many areas where there's a tendency for pretty much everyone to keep quiet, even third parties who see the signs. That's why organizations trying to help devote so much of their time trying to get people to openly talk about things.
That's an analogy, so of course it's not directly true. But it's not a particularly wild one. Sociopaths will do whatever they can get away with. The dumb ones and the ones with poor impulse control end up in prison. The smart ones stick with abuse that is legal, like Jobsian verbal abuse and Kalanick and Gates's market abuse.
Whatever your intent, you are in effect justifying their actions. My point is that you can use your exact logic to justify anything that succeeds at the expense of others. It's used all the time with political leaders in other countries who succeed through violence.
Instead of justifying it, we can work to change things. Sexual abuse was perfectly acceptable for decades, probably centuries. But the #MeToo movement shows that standards can change, and that abusers can face accountability. The same sort of change is possible if we want to limit other kinds of abuse. It's up to us.
If detecting abuse requires knowing the identities of the people involved, it sounds like another way of saying that some behaviors are fine if they are directed at certain people, but "abuse" if directed at other people.
"As contrast see" someone who wasn't abused state that they know he's a nice guy? That's not convincing to anyone who doesn't disbelieve victims by default.
The idea that people who suffer abuse are in the wrong by not going to authorities who typically also disbelieve them is poisonous.
reply