Ship of Fools: Punching Up and Punching Down

Thread: Punching Up and Punching Down Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029030

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

We don't have a TICTH thread but, just for the record, I'd like to call to Hell all those who have used these terms, principally on the Hate Speech thread in Purgatory. I believe it started with Bibliophile, which wouldn't surprise me as s/he is very and deliberately annoying too.

I get the idea what it is shorthand for, but it's imprecise and I've yet to see a use that hasn't been derogatory.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

I second that. I've been letting loose a little rant in my head every time I read those terms.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I had to Google it - and came across this, not sure who by.

"The concept is used so that it's completely acceptable for certain groups of people to be as vile and disgusting as they want with their "humor" since they are "punching up" while still giving them the ability to "call out" people who make a joke they don't like. Through their logic, they can now establish the types of humor are acceptable and the types that aren't."

Makes sense.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As I have no idea what TICTH stands for, I looked for it with Google. What I found was a link to a previous Ship of Fools thread on the subject, which likewise did not define it.

I take it TICTH is some kind of inside joke.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I had to Google it - and came across this, not sure who by.

"The concept is used so that it's completely acceptable for certain groups of people to be as vile and disgusting as they want with their "humor" since they are "punching up" while still giving them the ability to "call out" people who make a joke they don't like. Through their logic, they can now establish the types of humor are acceptable and the types that aren't."

Makes sense.

My point exactly

Thanks for finding that.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

TICTH = Today I consign to hell.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I had to Google it - and came across this, not sure who by.

"The concept is used so that it's completely acceptable for certain groups of people to be as vile and disgusting as they want with their "humor" since they are "punching up" while still giving them the ability to "call out" people who make a joke they don't like. Through their logic, they can now establish the types of humor are acceptable and the types that aren't."

Makes sense.
My point exactly

Thanks for finding that.

BA, you do as much of it as anyone. Put the false humility aside, it doesn't suit you.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I had to Google it - and came across this, not sure who by.

"The concept is used so that it's completely acceptable for certain groups of people to be as vile and disgusting as they want with their "humor" since they are "punching up" while still giving them the ability to "call out" people who make a joke they don't like. Through their logic, they can now establish the types of humor are acceptable and the types that aren't."

Makes sense.

First, that is a bullshit definition. No, it really is.
Punch up, not down means don't bully. This is the essence of the thing.
The definition above is loaded as hell and that is generally a clue.
Agree or disagree, but get the concept right first.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Best you've got?
I suppose if you don't have the ability to form a coherent reply, it is best to resort to smilies.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The definition posted by Boogie is exactly what the punching up/punching down thing is all about. Your claim that it's about not bullying is simply laughable. If you were concerned about bullying, you would have a problem with punching period which you obviously don't.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I had to Google it - and came across this, not sure who by.

"The concept is used so that it's completely acceptable for certain groups of people to be as vile and disgusting as they want with their "humor" since they are "punching up" while still giving them the ability to "call out" people who make a joke they don't like. Through their logic, they can now establish the types of humor are acceptable and the types that aren't."

Makes sense.
First, that is a bullshit definition. No, it really is.
Punch up, not down means don't bully. This is the essence of the thing.

You think bosses can't be bullied by workers?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Here is the answer to my own question. But, just because it is rare doesn't mean it never happens.

"Hierarchical Bullying, Peer Bullying, Upward Bullying

The majority of cases of workplace bullying reported to Tim Field's UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line involved an individual being bullied by their manager, accounting for around 75% of cases. Around a quarter of cases involved bullying and harassment by peers (often with the collusion of a manager either by proactive involvement or by the manager refusing to take action). Only 2% of cases involved the bullying of a manager by a subordinate."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The definition posted by Boogie is exactly what the punching up/punching down thing is all about. Your claim that it's about not bullying is simply laughable. If you were concerned about bullying, you would have a problem with punching period which you obviously don't.

As if making a declarative statement is all that is necessary to prove a point. How about some examples of your definition in use?
Here is one demonstrating mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You think bosses can't be bullied by workers?

Where did I say anything resembling this?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb]
Punch up, not down means don't bully. This is the essence of the thing.
The definition above is loaded as hell and that is generally a clue.
Agree or disagree, but get the concept right first.

Well no, having seen this in action by its practitioners, I have to disagree. It's a boiling down of the idea common in certain strands of identity politics which interprets intersectionality to mean that there is a hierarchy of oppressed groups - so where you fall on the hierarchy dictates who you are allowed to criticise/satirise/argue with. ( 'punching up' or 'punching down')

The hierarchy is a kind of inversion of who is thought to have 'privilege' in society, so instead of being at the top, white straight cis men are at the bottom etc. The problem with this is that it starts to assume a kind of infallibility for people further down the hierarchy, so no matter how malicious, personality-disordered, religiously-fanatic, nasty or downright thick such a person is, if they argue with the white cis, het guy, then even if he is a cross between Pope Francis and Albert Einstein with a side of being pro-women's rights and LGBT friendly, they are right and he is wrong and must shut up. The same is the case if a WCHG or WCHWoman or White Cis Gay person dares to mock a non-white person of any sort who wants to cut their heads off for having same sex intercourse, make their testimony worth half that of the opposite sex, force them into purdah, jail them for being raped, or shoot them for drawing a cartoon...

Ship of Fools isn't my only bulletin board where I post and the other one (no names - we don't do that here) has caught a bad, bad case of this. The dogpiling bullies over there who hang out in the equivalent of the Styx waving their pixellated pitchforks contain large numbers of what you might term 'lottery winners' in the Intersectionality Olympics. Surprise surprise, they don't behave any better than anyone else accorded a species of infallibility - even if they are getting a bit of revenge for normally getting the shitty end of the stick in society at large.

So imagine my joy to see this concept used to excuse all kinds of religious fascism and bullying getting imported over here. No thanks. You can tear up my card-carrying liberal card before I'll lie down for that. If you want to argue against the powerful oppressing the powerless, it can be done without assuming that any relative lack of privilege somehow confers infallibility and immunity from criticism on people, regardless of the merits of the case or not.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Louise,

Not at all doubting your experience. But it is not universal. The use I've encountered has been more like the link I posted in response to BA.

The idea that someone should be wrong because of what they are is wrong. Whilst I have seen your example happening,* what I see much more of is people using derogatory terms and whinging when others protest.

Here a problem: If things were anywhere near balance, we would likely not be having this conversation.

*My nephew, at ~5 or 6 IIRC, said white people were responsible for all bad things. His mother and I set him straight, but it is a difficult conversation with someone of that age.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Well no, having seen this in action by its practitioners, I have to disagree ... regardless of the merits of the case or not.

Phwarrr

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Punch down is what you do to bread dough after the first rising. The rest of it is just stupid.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Louise,

Not at all doubting your experience. But it is not universal. The use I've encountered has been more like the link I posted in response to BA.

The idea that someone should be wrong because of what they are is wrong. Whilst I have seen your example happening,* what I see much more of is people using derogatory terms and whinging when others protest.

Here a problem: If things were anywhere near balance, we would likely not be having this conversation.

*My nephew, at ~5 or 6 IIRC, said white people were responsible for all bad things. His mother and I set him straight, but it is a difficult conversation with someone of that age.

Honestly, and this is maybe a bit unhellish, I see quite a lot of where you're coming from - because when I first met this I was very interested in it and yes, saw it being used to call out things like trivialising rape - but the thing is - you can call someone out for trivialising rape without this underpinning.

The point where I went 'whoa!' was when I saw it being used to shut up people talking about the other kinds of misogyny that kill women and stunt their lives - to wit any form of misogynist religious fanaticism where the rapists, murders or sexists are not white, and I saw how this left the women in minority communities who were campaigning against honour killings, sharia, their rights being rolled back by male 'community leaders' isolated and the people who should have been their allies, retreating because we were afraid of being accused of racism if we spoke up. Then I saw it being used to excuse murder and to destroy the reputations of the murdered because they were deemed to have 'punched down' by satirising and speaking out against fundamentalism.

And it really made me think about it. And the conclusion I came to was that yes, it does end up propagating the idea 'that someone should be wrong because of what they are'. Indeed recently I came across a commenting community which made that explicit in its commenting rules and I thought about why I was so uncomfortable with something which in many cases was kicking against the same things I thought ought to be kicked against. I came to the conclusion that though well-intentioned, it was becoming a new form of infallibility/immunity.

Meet the new elite - same as the old elite: as in whatever gives you privileges for what you were born as or born into, produces the same arrogant entitled behaviour, even if it's seen as a kind of 'evening up' for people who are normally underprivileged. It becomes not your argument and your evidence but what groups you belong to that matters. The most abominable atrocities get downplayed because it's 'punching down' to critique their perpetrators - even when rape or the killing of LGBT people, the murder of innocent people for their religion, or the murder of journalists/ curtailing of freedom of speech are involved.

And if you think I'm just saying that because I'm a privileged white woman, I can't put it better than Southall Black Sisters. I think this is something which looks on the surface like a good idea but ends up being a danger to universal human rights. Sorry.

[ 13. July 2015, 21:56: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You can tear up my card-carrying liberal card before I'll lie down for that. If you want to argue against the powerful oppressing the powerless, it can be done without assuming that any relative lack of privilege somehow confers infallibility and immunity from criticism on people, regardless of the merits of the case or not.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Louise be smart.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

What it comes down to is just because someone is an oppressed minority doesn't mean they are a nice person. A member of an oppressed minority can be just as much a hate-filled bullying jerk as a member of an unoppressed group, and it's just as wrong when they are. I never heard the "punch up, punch down" terminology before this, but this is still what it comes down to. Hateful behavior is hateful no matter who is doing it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

I came to the conclusion that though well-intentioned, it was becoming a new form of infallibility/immunity.

And this is wrong for it to be used so.
Since your link to SBS brings up Charlie Hebdo, let me make a couple of comments.
One, never did I ever say or think that they deserved, or brought down, an attack on themselves. And anyone justifying this in any way is wrong.
I did say they were arseholes. I am re-evaluating that, but the original thought never meant that I thought the attack was any less horrendous or at all justified.

Back to meanings.
Black Pride. Black pride originated as a counter to being made to feel ashamed of the colour of your skin. To your entire identity being the colour of your skin. It was taken, by some, a bit further to mean black superiority. This does not change the original meaning, nor does it change that it still retains the original meaning.
Here is a problem I have with the punching up, not down being assigned the meaning you express: Every time a phrase or concept is generated which might be a short-hand way to address an issue, someone fucks it up. Either by taking it too far or denying its validity. And we let them.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What it comes down to is just because someone is an oppressed minority doesn't mean they are a nice person.

This is most true.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Hateful behavior is hateful no matter who is doing it.

This is also true. I would qualify this by saying not all hateful behaviour has the same effect.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
I would qualify this by saying not all hateful behaviour has the same effect.

You imply (though I'm not sure if you meant to) that from a utilitarian point of view, the hateful behaviour of the relatively powerless is a lesser evil; their lack of influence necessarily limiting the impact of their hate.

This seems to have a certain internal logic; to me it suggests a (nother) reason not to be a utilitarian.

And Louise - great posts, increasingly pertinent to my really plural environment.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The way I look at this is that it's the difference between pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes and pointing out the same for the homeless woman huddled in a doorway.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Not really, that's the feel-good over-simplified version. In actual fact, it's also used to say if the emperor is leading a witch-hunt, we may say boo, but if the homeless woman in the doorway is leading a lynch mob about to beat to death a fellow homeless person, because she thinks she's bewitched her with a wax poppet- we must not criticise or mock, because her poverty means however fanatical and dangerous her religious belief, we are metaphorically 'punching down' if we say anything - meanwhile someone innocent who we should have protected actually gets punched to death.

Will come back to LB's points later.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Not really, that's the feel-good over-simplified version.

And yours is the feel-bad slippery-slope version.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Context is everything, as always.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Not really, that's the feel-good over-simplified version.
And yours is the feel-bad slippery-slope version.

People who suffer economic hardship and prejudice don't only empower themselves or react to suffering in ways which respect others, especially not where religion is concerned. Religions held by relatively underprivileged people can, for example, codify a subordinate status for women, other religious groups, people of different castes or sexual orientations, or allow vigilanteism/physical punishment against people who transgress purity codes/commit heresy/apostasy/blasphemy/idolatry, or can allow for people to be murdered on the grounds of false beliefs about witchcraft. Once critiques of such practices are delegitimised on grounds of 'privilege' their victims can get deprived of the help, shelter and protection of those powerful enough to stop their persecutors.

Sometimes religious revivals come about as a way of underprivileged people feeling more empowered and comforted in their lives - but if the religion encodes oppressive practices of its own, then even if it is practised by a relatively underprivileged group, it may need to be resisted or critiqued. And if there is a revival going on, more and more people may be victimised as a more hard-core form of religious practice spreads to people who were previously non-practising or practised a more moderate form of religion. Exempting such ideas from criticism in the name of not 'punching down' can mean looking the other way and finding excuses while the practitioners punch others, sometimes literally.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

No-one is talking about exempting ideas from criticism. I'll leave answering your arguments to the strawman you're clearly addressing.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I thought the thread where the phrase was first used was about criticising ideas. The way the phrase was being used looked like saying it's OK for a relatively powerless group to criticise the ideas of more powerful, but it's not OK to do that in reverse.

The whole point of the original discussion was whether it's OK for the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo to criticise the ideas of Islamic State or not. It's all been about criticism of ideas. With a dash of whether Charlie Hebdo represents a more powerful group than IS or not.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Nobody I could see was claiming that criticising IS was a problem. The objection was to the broad stroke mockery of Muslims and gratuitous violation of the taboo on depicting the prophet Mohammed. It's like attacking Israeli actions by making fun of side locks and yamulkas and flying a helicopter over temple mount so you go through the holy of holies.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I nearly joined in the debate on this thread but Louise has nailed it so why should I bother? I'm off to buy some crap on Ebay.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I nearly joined in the debate on this thread but Louise has nailed it so why should I bother?

I'm glad I didn't say anything. Boogie's puppies distracted me from making a fool of myself.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
No-one is talking about exempting ideas from criticism. I'll leave answering your arguments to the strawman you're clearly addressing.

...It's like attacking Israeli actions by making fun of side locks and yamulkas and flying a helicopter over temple mount so you go through the holy of holies.

The entire point of spreading the concept is to get people to stop and then to self-censor criticism when those holding the ideas/beliefs criticised are deemed to be lower down the punching hierarchy. And if you weren't playing at this, you wouldn't have felt the need to pinpoint where they were on the 'punching' hierarchy as 'white middle class secularists' to show how wrong they were to criticise as they did (funny how sub-editor Mustapha Ourrad who was killed and journalist Zineb El Rhazoui who missed the meeting get missed out - but then they muck up the lovely punching hierarchy a bit.)

And here we go with slandering murdered anti-racist campaigners as racists equivalent to anti-semites... It’s laying it on thick to accuse a magazine which satirised people who called for the murder of Danish cartoonists of "blanket-attacking Islam" as you did in Purgatory. If people don't believe that others should be killed for drawing cartoons of religious figures - then it's far from gratuitous to draw a cartoon to make the point that killing in the name of a taboo about a religious depiction is wrong and that they think that’s ridiculous. I looked at a lot of their covers and far from seeing 'blanket attacks' on Islam no better than racist antisemitism (which is what you're implying with your comparisons) I saw things like their cover of a gay kiss between one of the cartoonists and a muslim man with the caption '“Love is stronger than hate.” Cheeky, yes. Neo-Nazi/Anti-semite level racism, no.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought the thread where the phrase was first used was about criticising ideas. The way the phrase was being used looked like saying it's OK for a relatively powerless group to criticise the ideas of more powerful, but it's not OK to do that in reverse.

The whole point of the original discussion was whether it's OK for the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo to criticise the ideas of Islamic State or not. It's all been about criticism of ideas. With a dash of whether Charlie Hebdo represents a more powerful group than IS or not.

I went back and the first use was talking about the definition I give with the use Louise gives.
The discussion that followed began as to which direction CH were punching and why. The discussion turned south when BA accused me of determining the direction of the punch based upon what I liked, not the criteria of the definition I accept. And then his saying the basic meaning of the definition was the use Louise has encountered.

Louise: I do not disagree with your last post.

quote:
but if the religion encodes* oppressive practices of its own, then even if it is practised by a relatively underprivileged group, it may need to be resisted or critiqued.

But this bit makes me nervous. It is not the encoding, but strictly the practice, IMO. But the bit I made bold appears to lean towards condemning of a religion entire. Not accusing you of this, but this is how it appears.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Lil Buddha, I don't think there's anything I disagree with you on so much in that last post as I'd feel inclined to argue in Hell.
cheers,
L

{ahhh and I cross posted with you! - going to read what is now your last post!]

[ 15. July 2015, 00:38: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
But this bit makes me nervous. It is not the encoding, but strictly the practice, IMO. But the bit I made bold appears to lean towards condemning of a religion entire. Not accusing you of this, but this is how it appears.

I dunno - there were religions like Mormonism which at one time held explicitly racist beliefs against black people. they changed that in relatively recent historical times. I would probably argue with that as a concept were it still in force. And I wouldn't be sure how it was not being practiced or having an effect, if it was regularly preached - but this is probably a quibble.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
But this bit makes me nervous. It is not the encoding, but strictly the practice, IMO. But the bit I made bold appears to lean towards condemning of a religion entire. Not accusing you of this, but this is how it appears.
I dunno - there were religions like Mormonism which at one time held explicitly racist beliefs against black people. they changed that in relatively recent historical times. I would probably argue with that as a concept were it still in force. And I wouldn't be sure how it was not being practiced or having an effect, if it was regularly preached - but this is probably a quibble.

Joseph Smith doesn't appear to have been racist. There were black priests. Brigham Young changed this and they stayed organisationally racist until the 1970's. But they are a very, erm, practical religion. Most of the 5% of Mormons who are black live in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean.
In my admittedly limited experience, I would say that Mormons tend to be ~ as racist as their surroundings.
And it just might be fair to say I am a bit sensitive to racism.

I tend to the philosophy that it is not religion, but the nature of humans, which fucks up our world. And I think I have ample evidence to back this claim.

[ 15. July 2015, 01:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I tend to the philosophy that it is not religion, but the nature of humans, which fucks up our world. And I think I have ample evidence to back this claim.

Well indeed, if the atheist state of the USSR and their atrocities were anything to go by.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I tend to the philosophy that it is not religion, but the nature of humans, which fucks up our world. And I think I have ample evidence to back this claim.
Well indeed, if the atheist state of the USSR and their atrocities were anything to go by.

That and every religion or philosophy which has had power. Nothing is proof against it so far.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I tend to the philosophy that it is not religion, but the nature of humans, which fucks up our world. And I think I have ample evidence to back this claim.
Well indeed, if the atheist state of the USSR and their atrocities were anything to go by.
That and every religion or philosophy which has had power. Nothing is proof against it so far.

I agree with you so you might want to go and change your mind.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No need, Mere Nick. I only disagree with you when you are wrong.
That is why agreeing with me feels so unfamiliar to you.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Religions held by relatively underprivileged people can, for example, codify a subordinate status for women, other religious groups, people of different castes or sexual orientations, or allow vigilanteism/physical punishment against people who transgress purity codes/commit heresy/apostasy/blasphemy/idolatry, or can allow for people to be murdered on the grounds of false beliefs about witchcraft. Once critiques of such practices are delegitimised on grounds of 'privilege' their victims can get deprived of the help, shelter and protection of those powerful enough to stop their persecutors.

It's true. Yet at the same time, it's astonishing how many people who have previously denied that sexism is a problem, that there is systematic violence against women, etc, suddenly become loud and vocal converts to the cause once religious and racial minorities are the perpetrators (although not to the point of wanting the government to provide help, shelter or protection beyond police harassment and immigration control).

The reality of the matter is that in a society in which it is widely believed that most religious minorities are violent bigots it takes care and consideration to target only the violent bigots and not catch the socially integrated members as well.

(No comment on the rights and wrongs of specific cases intended.)

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No need, Mere Nick. I only disagree with you when you are wrong.
That is why agreeing with me feels so unfamiliar to you.

No, you only disagree when you're wrong, etc, etc, so on and so forth.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0