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?
  • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    Wonder why you used this language to start the conversation:

    Generally this is referencing any policy that is contrary to a leftist belief that the thread discusses.

    • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caOPMEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      I have a shitload of leftist beliefs, but I really hate this phrase and have never seen it used by someone who wasn’t left-leaning. I have corrected my initial statement (which is intended to be completely neutral and non-leading) to specify that this is solely my experience with it.

      • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        In my experience arguments that broadly characterize groups of people aren’t make in good faith. No matter how that sentiment is reworded.

        In my opinion the cruelty is the point is a coping sort of term. When faced with something uncomfortable or even unconscionable I try to understand the situation.

        Why does police violence disproportionately affect minorities, for example? It isn’t new. This shit was around long before Rodney King. The only thing that changed recently was that the killer went to jail.

        When I ask myself how I live with a society and a law enforcement system that allows these things to happen I try to understand why. It seems to me that either one of two things could be true. Either it is incompetence, or that the cruelty is the point.

        Seems to me that the cruelty is the point. I don’t think every cop is a bastard, for example. See my first point about generalizing. I do think there is a voting bloc that’s never encountered the law enforcement arm of our society and they’ll continue to vote and act in ways that lack empathy.

        Because to them, the cruelty is the point. A deterrent to crime. Don’t steal anything if you don’t want to get cornholed or shivved in prison. Don’t have a criminal history, because if you do then it’s okay for someone to kneel on your neck for 10m.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      That anecdote also matches my experience. OP wasn’t singling out leftists, it’s just that we’re the only ones I’ve ever seen use this phrase.

  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    Honestly, there’s a lot of writing about this sentiment already which explains it in great depth. To understand it, that would be a good place to start.

    But, yes, I absolutely believe it’s true in many cases. For example, the criminal justice system, from police brutality to prisons. There are many proven alternative methods to rehabilitate, reduce crime, and make society safer, and a certain political persuasion utterly refuses to consider any of it. Digging into their arguments, the only internally consistent explanation is that they want people to punish. It doesn’t matter if crime could be prevented and everybody made better off. In short, the cruelty of the punishment is the point, even if it means that we have more crime victims as a result.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      5 months ago

      I beleave your are correct here. however, I do want to point out that humans can have some very strange derivitive goals (goals that are formed to accomplish other goals).

      Hatrid of The Other can be created by capitalism’s built-in hunger for human blood. Phrases like “we need to kill or deport X or we will become unemployed, run out of money and starve.” If you dont consistantly sacrifice human lives, you enter an Overproduction Crisis (literally meaning not enough scarsity) and the money becomes viscous. Anyone who is selfish or scared will treat the world like its kill or be killed. Any mechonism to make the process look and more importantly feel legitimate (civil, humane, “he was a criminal anyway”, a just war, slautering of unwanted “livestock”, killing of “hostile beasts”, etc…) is embraced with passion.

  • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    6 months ago

    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?

    These three go together for me, as the phrase is frequently used to highlight the fact that the policies or practices are based on people who are ‘other’ and serve no beneficial purpose to society in general while also negatively impacting people. Things like banning stuff like LGBTQ+ events or activities, banning DEI, creating laws that punish people for seeking out healthcare are all things that only exist to punish someone for being different or making choices for themselves. The vast majority of the time I see the phrase it is about some conservative initiative to rile their base by targeting the minority group of the week with laws and policies that actively harm people.

    It is sometimes used incorrectly because any terminology gets used incorrectly.

    Do you feel that speech like this is conducive to fixing societal issues?

    Yes, because it is a response that stresses the fact that a lot of actions taken that sound like they could be a mistake are actually intentionally harmful to a subset of the population. The war on drugs for example is on record as being promoted to put minorities and hippies in jail for example. Language that opposes harm doesn’t need to be calm, it should be forceful and provoke a response because it both promotes action from those that agree because there is a strong front and it can sway people who might not be aware of the negative impacts of whatever is being criticized.

    It does not matter if it doesn’t sway the people who are in favor of the harm because it isn’t framed in a nice way. They are already on board with harm.

    Yes, some people go overboard but that doesn’t invalidate the message any more than someone who takes anything too far.

    Is what is considered “kind” always the best course of action?

    Pointing out something is harmful doesn’t mean the opposite is kind. In most cases not doing anything at all would be the opposite of the harmful actions, and not doing anything is not kind any more than not punching someone in the stomach isn’t being kind.

  • blackstampede@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    I don’t really believe this is ever true, except insofar as the cruelty accomplishes some goal. Anti-homeless spikes are, in my opinion, cruel- I would prefer we found some way to address homelessness directly instead of hiding the homeless. But the people who installed them, approved the installation, and came up with the idea aren’t trying to be cruel, they’re trying to keep the homeless from being visible in public spaces.

    The cruelty isn’t the point, it’s a means of reaching the point.