Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

This weekly thread will focus on the phrase “The Cruelty Is The Point”, which may take some explanation.

Frequently on Lemmy (and elsewhere), I see the phrase in comment threads. In my experience, it has been referencing any policy that is contrary to a Liberal or Leftist belief that the thread discusses. I have found the phrase when discussing trans issues, housing, taxes, healthcare, abortion, and many more.

This does not mean it doesn’t exist elsewhere, it is simply where I see it since I spend much of my social media time on Lemmy. If your experience differs, please let us know!

Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):

  • Do you believe this? If so, why?
  • Is it true / false in some or all scenarios?
  • Is it with certain groups or regarding certain things?
  • Do you feel that speech like this is conducive to fixing societal issues?
  • Is what is considered “kind” always the best course of action?
  • Ace T'KenOPMEnglish
    2·
    7 months ago

    That is an accurate example, but I don’t feel it’s true in every case (or even the majority) where the phrase is used.

    For example, many right-wing policies (that I dislike very much) have the phrase in question used in discussions below them. More often than not it’s an ineptness, stupidity, lack of knowledge, or something else cause them to feel that the result would be beneficial. Maybe the intended result is power, or something economic, but it’s NOT them just trying to be mean.

    I know you know it, but for anyone reading this… Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    I’ve spoken to plenty of limited-understanding people all over the world. Many of them are broadly kind and well-meaning and brutally misguided people. Many express regret at any cruelty they “had to” do, but felt their goal justified it.

    Dismissing it as just being shitty to be shitty is stopping people from addressing the underlying issues in the same way that some would dismiss a drug addict as “just an addict” without thinking about addressing underlying issues.

    “He wants to be high because he likes being high.” Well, maybe? But probably not, or at very least there’s way more to it.

    Hopefully I didn’t overstep.

      • Ace T'KenOPMEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        I know it does, and that’s a massive pet peeve of mine (if you couldn’t tell from other threads). To be clear pre mini-rant, this isn’t aimed at you, it’s just something that bothers me and I wanted to get it out.

        I think clarity and unity of terms use is one of the major issues that need to be addressed, especially now. It’s also one of the reasons I often will add the definition of a term being used in our weekly threads, because I don’t like people claiming to be correct because their “personal definition” obscures the truth. We have words. They are effective, powerful, and can be wielded to great effect. Changing what they mean in order to shock with a worse term is a horrible thing to do and is a dumbing-down that serves to undermine the original definition. It makes communication worse.

        I despise forced political movement of words and don’t like turning words into the personal equivalent of morality.