What is it with performative condemnation? The push for it? Is it a control thing? I think very much that it's a psychological trick to get the upper hand in an interaction. If I don't officially and performatively condemn acts of murder or war crimes, is the assumption that I condone them? Are you kidding me? I have to defend myself against people thinking I'm a monster, by default? And a performative declaration of "I am not a monster" would fix that? Or would it just put me in a cycle of having to performatively reiterate my not being a monster every single time people thought I should just because I'd already done it in the past? And my not doing it in a specific case would be even greater proof that I must, in fact, condone the new monstrous acts, in my heart of hearts. No. That way lies madness. I don't have to prove I'm not a monster. You should already know I'm not, if you know me at all. I don't need to impress people who don't know me. I would hope that my friends would interpret any of my statements in a generous light. I would hope that my friends would clear up any incorrect assumptions for anyone who's mad at me for things I clearly never said or meant. I don't need to officially condemn specific acts of terror. That's a waste of my time. It's enough to say, generally, that I think that murder is abhorrent. Rape is abhorrent. Etc. Threats of violence, reveling in fear, these things are abhorrent. Once you've set out your principles, your stance, condemning a specific subset of abhorrent acts seems superfluous. Any such condemnation would be trying to top what was already superlative. So what would be the point? Ah, the point would be to <i>approve something else</i> with the condemnation, to pledge allegiance to a cause, to a certain story of how the world is. That way, too, lies madness. Much better to be clear about allegiances, rather than to leave them implied. How would such a condemnation sound, in that case? As a show of support for that which is opposite to that which is condemned? Should the condemnation be couched in terms like "were things to have transpired in the way that you've described, including acts which I've already made clear I find abhorrent and have condemned in the abstract, then, yes, clearly, and by induction, I would also find these hypothetical acts abhorrent and worthy of condemnation." Such a statement would not only be considered inadequate---too <i>hedged</i>, although it's very <i>precise</i>---and would have added nothing of substance to the conversation, other than to make mental incompetents smugly nod to themselves as they infer much, much more from it. On top of that, there's my anti-authoritarian streak. The more you demand I make a statement, the less likely I am to want to make that statement. My hackles are up. The more strident your demands, the more I suspect your motives. If I were to condemn murder, do I have to specifically condemn killing babies? Or lighting them on fire? Or whatever horrible thing you can come up with? Would I also have to condemn rape? Wouldn't being against murder already contain all of the other things? Or does one have to list all of the horrible things that anyone can dream up individually? No, I will let my past statements and writings speak for themselves. If you're not familiar with them, then don't assume you know what I'm thinking. The article <a href="https://www.der-postillon.com/2023/10/timmy-schweigt.html" author="" source="Der Postillon">Dröhnendes Schweigen: Kleiner Timmy (9) hat sich immer noch nicht zur Lage in Israel geäußert</a> came across my feeds. It means <iq>Ominous silence: Timmy (9) has still not spoken out about the situation in Israel.</iq> Indeed. Timmy is <a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sus">sus</a>.