apparently threatening people with violence or claiming you are going to inflict it upon them is “just provocative language”, not a threat.
if someone said to me “die cis scum” or whatever i’d think i was in imminent danger and fight back. as someone who has experienced another try to strangle me, it isn’t a rhetorical device, but something immediately accessible. i hope people face the consequences of their ignorant hyperbolic threats. it is terrorism.
note the distinction “cis people should die” vs “die cis scum”. the qualifier ‘should’ mitigates the threat, whereas the alternative is an immediate threat and act of verbal violence literally equivalent to “i’m going to enjoy killing you”. to litterally fight back out of self defense cause you think an angry mod is going to murder/lynch you is hardly unreasonable. but i bet that too would be patriarchy.
Well, well, well. It seems the latest thing feminism is fighting about is the phrase “kill all men”.
So, before I launch into this defence, let me point out that nobody is actually planning to kill all men. Not even some men. It’s just a phrase, an expression of rage, a rejection of a system which is riddled with violence.
“Kill all men” is a shorthand war cry, much the same as “ACAB” or “tremble hetero swine” or “die cis scum”. It represents a structural critique, presented in a provocative fashion. While my focus here is on “kill all men”, and therefore in relation to sexist oppression specifically, these points are applicable for all oppressors and all victims of oppression who dare to feel angry.
Patriarchy harms men, it’s true, but it oppresses the fuck out of women, and there are few, if any men who are not complicit in…
View original post 734 more words