[aaronem]

But you're not talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence. You're talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence against the protected groups of your choice. There's a substantive difference there; the latter proposition has holes in it which I'd argue are, if not dangerous, then at least compromising to the goal of reducing violence, period.

I'll grant that not getting beaten up for being gay would've fetched me fewer beatings, and fewer would've been better than more. But no matter how thoroughly you manage to instill "don't beat up people because they're gay", fewer beatings is all you'll ever achieve by it. Considering that, if your movement has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people because they're gay" social engineering project, it also has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people, period" social engineering project, aiming for a lesser goal than you can attain seems to me a bit crass. (As it happens, I don't think your movement has the power to succeed at either project, so for me the question is academic. But you think otherwise, so, for you, I should think it'd be a matter of some import.)

[patdennis]

You're suggesting there are groups where I don't support targeting such a culture?

Edit: Yes, I support targeting a culture of violence, period. Areas of disproportionate violence, like vulnerable minorities, need disproportionate targeting.

Edit2: You admit that there's been a cultural change away from gay bashing. Doesn't that indicate that cultural change can and does work in preventing sanctioned violence against vulnerable minorities?

Edit3, in response to below: I'm on Hacker News for fun. Do you really think it never occurred to me that nerds get beat up?

[aaronem]

Yet it didn't occur to you, to worry about nerds getting beat on, until someone pointed out to you that that happens. Disproportionate targeting just conveys the idea that the problem is not one's propensity to deliver beatings, but rather merely one's choice of victims.

Edit in response to your Edit2: I admit no such thing, but even conceding the point, you still ignore mine, which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?

Edit in response to your Edit3: No, I suggest that it matters less to you that nerds get beat up than that gay and trans people do, and I suggest further that, having been beat up both for being a nerd and for being gay, worrying more about one than about the other misses the point that it's not the cause of the beatings, but the beatings, which are the problem.

And, for pity's sake, will you comment in response rather than editing? It's a lot easier to keep track of the former than the latter.

[Jtsummers]

> for pity's sake, will you comment in response rather than editing? It's a lot easier to keep track of the former than the latter.

Repyling gets delayed the further down the chain it goes. I didn't see the edits as they came up live, but that may have been why.

> which is that "against vulnerable minorities" is a problem. If you're going to shoot for a utopia, why not aim as high as you can?

I'm also in favor of this goal, but you seem to be thinking we can target all violent or violence condoning cultures en masse, which is a much harder proposition. You're also suggesting that we leave step 2 with just ??? and go to step 3 "world peace", we have to finish step 2 first and define it. It turns out it's really a thousand steps, some that can be taken together, and some that enable the rest. Consider just the general anti-gay culture in the US, it would be awesome if we could wake up tomorrow and see a free and open world. It's not going to happen, but there are steps in that direction. Until 2 years ago a number of friends and some family members who were in the US military couldn't openly discuss their relationships because of DADT, if they had they risked being discharged from the military. That same military now provides benefits to same-sex couples that used to be reserved for opposite-sex couples. Is the problem solved? Hardly (see Oklahoma), but it's getting there. We have to choose the battles that we can win, the battles we want to fight even though we will lose (at least this time, but maybe tomorrow), and the battles we'll have to wait to fight. It's not a surrender, it's not quitting, it's accepting that sometimes with our finite lives and finite energies we can't solve every problem at once. If one group wants to take on transphobia as a cause, and another wants to take on homophobia as cause and another wants to take on misogyny as a cause (opposition to these things, I mean), they aren't at odds with each other. And a victory with one often leads to victories in the others.

[aaronem]

The appearance of the "reply" link on the thread page is delayed, but you can reply immediately if you visit the comment page (by clicking the "link" link above the comment body), where the "reply" link always appears immediately.

I think you're still missing the point I am making, which is that it seems both simpler and more effective, not to target "cultures", but rather to target violence. Your anti-transphobes and your anti-homophobes and your anti-misogynists aren't working at cross purposes, exactly, but they are by default in silos, which is what necessitates the whole concept of "intersectionality" -- something which doesn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion, in that it still refuses to look outside the narrow categories of "vulnerable minorities" on whose behalf it is regarded as worthwhile to expend effort, but at least it's a start.

[Jtsummers]

Re replying: True, and I should have mentioned it, but I think most people don't know about it (evidenced by even older HN members still side-replying to messages far down a thread).

Re main topic: I'm trying to state my position and view more clearly. I'll either edit this later or post another reply. Short version: In my view violence is a product of the cultures it occurs in (or cultural boundaries).

[aaronem]

Not to preëmpt your longer formulation, but just as culture can engender violence, successful violence reinforces the culture which engendered it. Interrupting the cycle at the point of culture strikes me as a long and subtle process by comparison with interrupting it at the point of violence; after all, once people realize something won't produce the result they desire, they won't bother to waste their effort doing it.