Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.

I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way.

Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.

I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion.

Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.

But everyone says "oh you're missing the context" when challenged on their hateful rhetoric, and no targeted group enjoys being told they ought to die. I don't really see why anyone should be allowed to spread hate speech, even if they don't mean it literally or it doesn't "read darker".

For those of you who don't think in who/whom, note this comment well.

There are many, many people who think this way.

Or we can agree that both statements are wrong, and we should not wait and see the effects of allowing one over the other (we already are seeing dangerous effects however).

> When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality.

This might have been true once but the ascent of fourth-wave (misandrist) feminism has made short shrift with the assumption that women who say "kill all men" have a different intention than men who say "kill all women". In both cases it is most likely not to be taken literally, in both cases (humoristic intentions excepted) the message has a dark underpinning. Where in the "kill all women" case there might be a background of literal truth, in the "kill all men" case there is a background of wishful thinking, an idea that society is better off without men, that men are evil and unredeemable.

> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent

Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat.

Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?

>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox.

I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into.

Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.

When punching down it's important to dress it up so it looks like punching up. Attack the innocent who look like the guilty because the guilty are too hard to reach.

I don't think it should be. I think punches above a certain threshold of force shouldn't be permitted, regardless of whether they're aimed left, right, up, down, or diagonally. Also, who exactly is definitively judging these directions in each of these cases? What's the judgment criteria when two people reside among a distribution of different relative directions across multiple different parameters?

I think eliminating double standards in the enforcement of these policies is crucial for them to be effective and accepted by a community. You're just trading one set of implicit and explicit biases in for another, and many of the same issues start to bubble up. Yes, certainly not all of the same issues in the case of one group wielding more capability to carry out a threat than another group, but many of the important ones, especially when it comes to matters of epistemology and reasoning.

I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for stopping stereotyping and hate.

This includes "majority" populations and those more privileged. We shouldn't give hateful or blanket statements for them as they never decided to be that way. Putting entire groups of people based on some trait they were born with on blast is wrong.

Also the direction is a slippery slope too. "Well yes I can direct blanket negative/stereotypical/hate statements against Indians because I myself am a disabled, trans minority" ad-infinitum.

Can you provide recent examples?

On their front page right now:

- A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time

- Celebration of a black female CEO

- Discussion of abortion

- Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc)

- Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image

- Inappropriate boss in a meeting

None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub.

Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.

TwoXChromosomes has improved dramatically since it was first made a general sub. I'm sure it drove most of the misandry to other smaller subs. If anything it's a good example that exposing hate and echo chambers to a wider audience can help improve them in some cases.