Political discourse on The Comment Section

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DamianaRaven » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:59 am

Tesseracts wrote:Frankly... I'm really confused that more than one person has come to the conclusion that "alt right" is an insult.


I'm not. Have you seen some of those people and their political agendas? I would be insulted if someone sincerely believed that I were associated with their ilk.
  • 6

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:08 am

Tesseracts wrote:Yes Logan, it's acceptable to interpret and misinterpret people. That's an inevitable part of any conversation.

Frankly... I'm really confused that more than one person has come to the conclusion that "alt right" is an insult. I thought it was just a description. Of course, any label can be used as an insult, just look at how some people use the word "liberal." It's all about context.


Well I suppose that's just something I'm going to have to agree to disagree with some people on. And if that makes me a hypocrite in some people's eyes, well I can handle that.

What I can't handle is the idea of accusing people of saying things they didn't. That's lying about other forum users. I'm perfectly willing to accept that's not what you meant to do, but Noodle didn't say transpeople were useless freaks, she said a lot of things, objectionable things, but not that. And no, it doesn't matter to me how hurt someone is by something someone else here said, we're talking about adults here. I could take it into account, say it's not as bad as doing it to someone for no reason, but I can't be a part of something that just accepts it. If it's tolerated for people to suggest Noodle-Fox said things she didn't say if they're hurt enough, then it's okay for them to say it about me.
Because all roads lead back to me, cause I'm a self-centered prick. And I can't tolerate that. Even if no one ever does do it to me, the fact people will look the other way if they do is not something I can accept.

And as I've been saying, this place isn't a place for me to impose rules upon. Youse make the rules, I can either abide them or respectfully take my business elsewhere. No harm, no foul, no bad feelings, nothing but love and happy memories. But Tess', me aul bud from back in the Cracked comment section days I'm gonna need you to say it. So I know what the rules are and whether I'm willing to stay in a place that has them.

Tell me what Gisambards did is something that will be accepted here. Even reluctantly. Then we can end this. As I say, no hard feelings.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Marcuse » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:16 am

To address your points made a little while ago Crimson:

1. Accusing someone of not reading someone else's posts (e.g. "please actually read my post next time, kthx") is pugnacious enough; accusing them of not even reading their own posts is quite a bit further. You guys fairly objected in the past when I made similar comments to Logan during an argument, and it's even harder to deal with coming from someone in a position of authority like an admin.


I think there's a big difference between the two things though. When I wanted to respond to you over your objections, what do you think the first thing I did was? Often in arguments we read and re-read other people's stuff until the cows come home, but we don't always re-read ours. I don't think it's unfair, when someone is expressing disbelief that people are disagreeing with them on an issue, to say "hey it's what you wrote a while back that's making people act like this". If I replied to this comment with "I don't know what you're talking about, I'm insulted and angry that you're challenging me on this" it would be appropriate to tell me that you're replying to what I wrote.

I will accept, however, that it was aggressive of me and for that, to Noodle and also to anyone else who was upset by this, I apologise. I don't believe I was suggesting to Noodle anything that I wouldn't suggest for myself, but I recognise that that doesn't always translate so well.

2. Prefacing something with "if I was being uncharitable, I'd say..." doesn't negate the rest of the sentence. I mean, if I told someone "if I was being uncharitable I'd say you're a drooling idiot", I would fully expect them to take that as an insult. Likewise, attacking someone's motives doesn't sting any less because the person conceded that it's "uncharitable" for them to do so before doing it anyway.


But I didn't say she was a drooling idiot. I said she was using the circumstance of Kevin Spacey to deflect criticism from her unfounded claim about a "gay male pedophile problem". I accused her of nothing more than making a poor argument. I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or incidental, which is why I didn't directly state that I thought Noodle was covering. But come what may Noodle was replying to "there isn't a gay male pedophile problem" with comments about Kevin Spacey and trying to drop anecdotes about other gay people she claimed had committed similar offenses which might have made sense to her, but was not actually sufficient reason to make the claim that she did.

At all times I focused my attention on her argument, not her person. I didn't use the word bigot, and searching my post history, the few times it does appear I'm either using it in response to someone else raising it or I'm saying it's wrong. It was not my intention to accuse her of bad faith, because we often make contradictory arguments that we can't see are contradictory until it's pointed out to us, but I can see how it can seem like that and again I apologise for the distress this has caused to both Noodle and others.
  • 10

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby A Combustible Lemon » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:47 am

As one of the people who did see "Alt right" as an insult, and this is a huge trigger for me, let me explain what I see wrong with calling people Alt Right.

The term alt right is completely muddled because of a media disinformation campaign that's lasted two years. There is no clean way to use it other than "if that person specifically calls themselves alt-right explicitly". It's a classic motte and bailey phrase. You expand the use of it to mean "MRAs, Redpillers, PUAs, Gamergators, Channers, Russian Bots and Libertarians" because they're all alternative views to the mainstream right endorsed by conservatives (henceforth "alt right"), but really you (reporters) want to call people "white identarians in the tradition of Richard Spencer" and "Neo-Nazi gangs" (Alt Right) without being challenged on it. It's a distinction between alt-right and Alt-Right that opportunistic people in the media have latched onto that's completely destroyed any way of having a reasonable conversation about this stuff.

If you believe there's no qualitative difference between these groups, you are the target of this disinformation*. The argument is usually that there's a lot of overlap between them, without the realization that this is natural. Non-mainstream political ideas that have been targeted will band together because the barrier preventing people from believing in them has already been broken once. (plenty of communists in the civil rights movement) Hence it being called "The Red Pill". If Gamergators know how completely shit the media is, they will challenge the mainstream media's champion in the presidency, which is why we have a ton of Trump supporters in Gamergate. Thing is, the non-Trump supporters can't exactly ideologically purge the trump supporters, because it's entirely tangential to media ethics concerns and they've learned from previous internet movements like Atheism+ that splitting the party along unrelated political differences is an intentional way of reducing their strength, and the correct option is to only challenge the Trumpers when they're Trumping. It's not like Republicans have a good track record on games, and it's not like Trump is anti-censorship.

So this idea that kek and pepe are uniquely alt-right is intentional. They haven't been tainted accidentally because the alt-right use them. They've been tainted intentionally because the media want to call people who use them alt right. Kek means lol. Saying you're doing it for the glory of kek is LITERALLY "I'm doing this for the lulz". Ask yourself why you think the phrase that's belonged to all of 4chan and mostly /b/ since the forum's founding is, unchanged, now a symbol of the alt right, apparently a creation of /pol/, not /b/. (The swastika WAS changed in meaning when the Nazis used it. The way the nazis used it was not how germanic pagans used it. That's a non-argument.)

It's not. It's just the latest iteration of lulz. Which is the context the Alt Right and the alt right both use it in.
Same thing for pepe. Unless you're arguing that Alt Right people aren't allowed to make jokes about ironically feeling bad about stuff, they're not subverting anything about it. They're using pepe correctly.
Unless they specifically make some actual unique changes to the meme, this is the argument that Hitler was a vegetarian, because there's nothing inherent to the meme, they didn't make the meme, and they aren't the exclusive users of the meme.

So really, my problem is with people calling someone who, as far as I can tell, is simply immersed in chan-culture, adjacent to people who want a white ethnostate. It's understandable if you do, and I really shouldn't have reported it instead of talking about it, but I'd really really prefer if people didn't. The original post wildly switches between all these characterizations of the alt-right and calls Noodle an alt-righter in the same paragraph. I wasn't the only person who read "a forum user affiliated with the alt-right" and took it to mean "a forum user affiliated with the Alt Right". And calling someone a Richard-Spencerite when she's espoused no views of how it would be better if White people were allowed a state to call their own is as insulting as calling a Pro-lifer a religious fundamentalist.

*- for instance, calling Jordan Peterson alt-right
  • 2



WE ARE ALL FLOATING IN THE WINDS OF TIME. BUT YOUR CANDLE WILL FLICKER FOR SOME TIME BEFORE IT GOES OUT -- A LITTLE REWARD FOR A LIFE WELL LIVED. FOR I CAN SEE THE BALANCE AND YOU HAVE LEFT THE WORLD MUCH BETTER THAN YOU FOUND IT, AND IF YOU ASK ME, said Death, NOBODY COULD DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT...
User avatar
A Combustible Lemon
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:25 pm
Location: The Internet, India
Show rep
Title: Grenadier

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:16 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
Tesseracts wrote:Yes Logan, it's acceptable to interpret and misinterpret people. That's an inevitable part of any conversation.

Frankly... I'm really confused that more than one person has come to the conclusion that "alt right" is an insult. I thought it was just a description. Of course, any label can be used as an insult, just look at how some people use the word "liberal." It's all about context.


Well I suppose that's just something I'm going to have to agree to disagree with some people on. And if that makes me a hypocrite in some people's eyes, well I can handle that.

What I can't handle is the idea of accusing people of saying things they didn't. That's lying about other forum users. I'm perfectly willing to accept that's not what you meant to do, but Noodle didn't say transpeople were useless freaks, she said a lot of things, objectionable things, but not that.


The problem I see with you not being able to handle "lies" about other users is that according to your definition of lying as I interpret it (i.e. attributing meanings to a statement that weren't spelled out by the person who stated the thing in question), you are lying about other users when you say that calling someone alt-right is an insult. It's attributing an intent that wasn't stated. In fact, in the "alt-right" case, you're insisting on calling something an insult even when it's spelled out that the label isn't being used that way. Simply saying, "well, I define alt-right differently," doesn't change that.

In one breath you say "Person X didn't literally say what I interpreted their words to mean, so it's unfair and a lie to interpret them that way" and in another accuse Person Y of essentially intending (and in effect saying) something they didn't literally say and actually said they didn't mean.

D-LOGAN wrote:
I would also like to point out that with the example of the Catholic Church, there was a concerted effort to cover up sexual abuse by priests. If someone used that to argue that Catholics have sex abuse problem (as opposed to the institution covering up abuse), I would point out that it's not a helpful position to take. And again, that's not the same as calling someone a bigot or saying they definitely have bad intentions.

When it comes to conversations in real-life or online, people may not be doing so because they're attempting to help something, but merely because they simply want to discuss a topic at hand.
There may be no deeper motive or agenda, positive or negative.


But what is being gained by making unfounded or misleading claims in a conversation? Sure, one doesn't have to point out the issue with saying something that's wrong on empirical or logical grounds. One doesn't have to care about "helping," but what's the point of the conversation if facts, logic, or both of those things are ignored? Granted, I could simply ignore that conversation or not participate, which is sometimes what I do. (Though, if we want to talk about insults and unfair statements, then maybe one should think about how unfair and insulting it is to propogate factually untrue narratives about a group of people). But even if I simply keep quiet, I think a conversation full of innacuracies that go unchallenged is useless, harmful, or both.
  • 5

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:29 pm

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:The problem I see withyou not being able to handle "lies" about other users is that according to your definition of lying as I interpret it (i.e. attributing meanings to a statement that weren't spelled out by the person who stated the thing in question), you are lying about other users when you say that calling someone alt-right is an insult. It's attributing an intent that wasn't stated. In fact, in the "alt-right" case, you're insisting on calling something an insult even when it's spelled out that the label isn't being used that way. Simply saying, "well, I define alt-right differently," doesn't change that.

Well your interpretation is wrong Fun With Mr. Fudge.

I can interpret associating someone with the alt-right as being an insult when someone else doesn't. That's a difference of opinion. Not me saying they're lying by not agreeing.

Putting the phrase transpeople are useless freaks across on someone when they did not say that is lying about them.


In one breath you say "Person X didn't literally say what I interpreted their words to mean, so it's unfair and a lie to interpret them that way" and in another accuse person why of essentially intending (and in effect saying) something they didn't literally say and actually said they didn't mean.

Feeling that something is an insulting thing to call someone is a matter of debate. People clearly have different stances on the matter and have expressed such. I don't believe lying about what forum users have said comes into that.

I think however a situation where anyone can now accuse anyone of saying anything is not an acceptable. If your cool with that, be my guest. My query is whether such matters will be tolerated by the moderators on this forum.
I happen to think if we're going to have discourse here, it should not be acceptable to make statements that people have such extrem things when they did not.

But what is being gained by making unfounded or misleading claims in a conversation? Sure, one doesn't have to point out the issue with saying something that's wrong on empirical or logical grounds. One doesn't have to care about "helping," but what's the point of the conversation if facts, logic, or both of those things are ignored? Granted, I could simply ignore that conversation or not participate, which is sometimes what I do. (Though, if we want to talk about insults and unfair statements, then maybe one should think about how unfair and insulting it is to propogate factually untrue narratives about a group of people). But even if I simply keep quiet, I think a conversation full of innacuracies that go unchallenged is useless, harmful, or both.

Then challenge it. My point was about whether it was inherantly bigoted to focus on such an issue of itself, or problematic enough that it may have as well been.

But as I said, I believe wires had been crossed on that front.
  • 3

Last edited by D-LOGAN on Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:46 pm

Putting the phrase transpeople are useless freaks across when they did not say that is lying about them.

No it's not. It's summarising what they said, based on my interpretation. I maintain that that's what she was saying, and just because she didn't use those exact words does not invalidate that. Interpretation is a key component of how language works - it is not "lying" to interpret something someone said to mean something other than what they literally said, it's actually a very normal part of conversation and debate.
  • 8

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:57 pm

So it's not lying to put across calling transpeople as useless freaks when they didn't say it, as long as you interpret it as that's what they meant?

Okay, well whatever it is then, whatever the term is for that, doing what you did, putting it out there that someone said something so specific and extreme that they didn't say but you reckon they meant, THAT is what I want to know, if it is and isn't acceptable here.

If you or whomever else thinks that's okay, that's your prerogative , I'm not your king, but I don't happen to think it's something users on a moderated forum should be expected to put up with, so I want to know, for the record, an official or whatever statement that the moderators agree on, is what you did something people are allowed do here.

That's what I'm asking for.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:05 pm

You'll be hard pressed to find a forum where interpreting things differently to you isn't considered acceptable.
  • 4

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:10 pm

Sure.

But there are limits, and putting it across that someone said transpeople are useless freaks when they didn't say that as you did, goes above and beyond as far I'm concerned. That's what you're arguing for right? For that being acceptable?

Well maybe it is Gisambards. I don't know yet. It might well be. But I've no use for that, and I don't think it's reasonable for users here to log on and see people putting across things they didn't say at levels that extreme. There was no shortage of objectionable things Noodle said you could have picked, you made the choice to pick something she didn't say.

If the people who run this forum agree with you, then so be it. No one here has to live by my moral code. I'm just asking for them to say it unambiguously if that's the case so I know for sure.

I don't believe that's asking a lot.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DoglovingJim » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:43 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:Sure.

But there are limits, and putting it across that someone said transpeople are useless freaks when they didn't say that as you did, goes above and beyond as far I'm concerned. That's what you're arguing for right? For that being acceptable?

Well maybe it is Gisambards. I don't know yet. It might well be. But I've no use for that, and I don't think it's reasonable for users here to log on and see people putting across things they didn't say at levels that extreme. There was no shortage of objectionable things Noodle said you could have picked, you made the choice to pick something she didn't say.

If the people who run this forum agree with you, then so be it. No one here has to live by my moral code. I'm just asking for them to say it unambiguously if that's the case so I know for sure.

I don't believe that's asking a lot.

Amen to that.
  • 2

Image

Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!

skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!

Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
User avatar
DoglovingJim
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:07 am
Location: No block of land is going to tie Jim and his dogs down.
Show rep
Title: Manly Man

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:18 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:The problem I see withyou not being able to handle "lies" about other users is that according to your definition of lying as I interpret it (i.e. attributing meanings to a statement that weren't spelled out by the person who stated the thing in question), you are lying about other users when you say that calling someone alt-right is an insult. It's attributing an intent that wasn't stated. In fact, in the "alt-right" case, you're insisting on calling something an insult even when it's spelled out that the label isn't being used that way. Simply saying, "well, I define alt-right differently," doesn't change that.

Well your interpretation is wrong Fun With Mr. Fudge.

I can interpret associating someone with the alt-right as being an insult when someone else doesn't. That's a difference of opinion. Not me saying they're lying by not agreeing.


That doesn't accurately capture my meaning, so I will reword my sentiments in hopes of creating clarity.

Person X says "these words translate into something I think means 'useless freak.'"

Then you say, "no, your interpretation is a lie or unfair or somehow similarly unacceptable" because the words "useless freak" were not literally uttered.

Person Y says "I associate someone with being alt-right"

Then you say, "alt-right means something I interpret as bad, so I'm saying you said something bad about them," even though Person Y says they're not using "alt-right" in a negative way (i.e. in the way you interpreted it).

If Person X is "lying" or "unfair," then I think your characterization of Person Y's assertion as an insult is equally problematic. Both rely on associations with words that were not spelled out by their respective sources. If Person X was lying or being unfair, then I think by that standard, you are being unfair toward - if not lying about - Person Y. That is how I see it, given that framework. Feel free to disagree.

One can debate what reasonable interpretations of certain words might look like, but in my view having a "wrong interpretation" shouldn't be described as a lie or something similar unless you can establish that there was some willful misrepresentation or active disregard for context. Or to use another example, it's no more a lie to interpret Noodle's remarks about transgender people in the military as "useless freaks" than it was a lie for you to interpret Tess's summary of Noodle's remarks about gays as a "monstrously unfair" twisting of Noodle's words. You interpreted Tess's words in a way she didn't mean and ascribed that false interpretation based on your thoughts. That seems (yes, "seems" since language is messy that way) to be what you're suggesting Gis might have done. On top of that you are attributing dishonest or otherwise dubious intetions.

Okay, hopefully that clears that up. For what it's worth, I think it's probably better not to police interpretations of people's words as a matter of official policy. Of course there will be exceptions, but it seems (yes, "seems" since I clearly don't know) like you're suggesting controversial or unflattering interpretations shouldn't be allowed unless the thing being said was explicitly stated having that unflattering interpretation. Language isn't that straightforward. We live in a world where racial, homoophobic, and literal dog whistles exist. There are such things as context clues. And yes, the history of a person's statements, if they show thematic consistency, might actually matter in terms of how you interpret current or future assertions.

If an interpretation is wrong, people can clarify and hopefully move on. That, I believe, is how one resolves misunderstandings. And to get to that point, sometimes unpleasant ideas are brought up and unflattering questions get asked. If people aren't allowed to interpret and address statements on that level, especially, when they lay out the basis for their interpretation, then I worry that a lot of misleading or odious claims and assumptions will just go unchecked for fear of being wrong. Tha's all I really have to say.
  • 5

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:48 pm

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:That doesn't accurately capture my meaning, so I will reword my sentiments in hopes of creating clarity.

Person X says "these words translate into something I think means 'useless freak.'"

Then you say, "no, your interpretation is a lie or unfair or somehow similarly unacceptable" because the words "useless freak" were not literally uttered.

Person Y says "I associate someone with being alt-right"

Then you say, "alt-right means something I interpret as bad, so I'm saying you said something bad about them," even though Person Y says they're not using "alt-right" in a negative way (i.e. in the way you interpreted it).

If Person X is "lying" or "unfair," then I think your characterization of Person Y's assertion as an insult is equally problematic. Both rely on associations with words that were not spelled out by their respective sources. If Person X was lying or being unfair, then I think by that standard, you are being unfair toward - if not lying about - Person Y. That is how I see it, given that framework. Feel free to disagree.

Okay. I do. Your take is your take on the matter, mine is mine.

One can debate what reasonable interpretations of certain words might look like, but in my view having a "wrong interpretation" shouldn't be described as a lie or something similar unless you can establish that there was some willful misrepresentation or active disregard for context. Or to use another example, it's no more a lie to interpret Noodle's remarks about transgender people in the military as "useless freaks" than it was a lie for you to interpret Tess's summary of Noodle's remarks about gays as a "monstrously unfair" twisting of Noodle's words.

If people want to use a different terminology for what Gisambards did, so be it. I'm fine calling it lying, but if you or anyone else thinks it was something else, I'll play ball and go along with that in the case of the interest of moving things along.
Whatever it was though, that's what I'm objecting to. If you think what I did about Tess' summery was just as bad or worse. Okay, you do that.
Go right ahead.
You interpreted Tess's words in a way she didn't mean and ascribed that false interpretation based on your thoughts. That seems (yes, "seems" since language is messy that way) to be what you're suggesting Gis might have done. On top of that you are attributing dishonest or otherwise dubious intetions.

Yes, I 100% am. I will do that if I feel it's warranted. And I do, so I am. I'll judge each incident on it's own merrits.

Okay, hopefully that clears that up. For what it's worth, I think it's probably better not to police interpretations of people's words as a matter of official policy.

I think putting it out that someone said something as extreme as transpeople are useless freaks when they didn't say that goes beyond such reasonable leeway with regular conversation. I believe that if someone has that happen to them, they should have the fact it crosses some rule in their favour to complain about to those in charge.

But if they don't, then I guess they don't, do they.

Of course there will be exceptions, but it seems (yes, "seems" since I clearly don't know) like you're suggesting controversial or unflattering interpretations shouldn't be allowed unless the thing being said was explicitly stated having that unflattering interpretation. Language isn't that straightforward. We live in a world where racial, homoophobic, and literal dog whistles exist. There are such things as context clues. And yes, the history of a person's statements, if they show thematic consistency, might actually matter in terms of how you interpret current or future assertions.

You're welcome to think that good sir.
But this incidence leads me to disagree.
If an interpretation is wrong, people can clarify and hopefully move on. That, I believe, is how one resolves misunderstandings. And to get to that point, sometimes unpleasant ideas are brought up and unflattering questions get asked. If people aren't allowed to interpret and address statements on that level, especially, when they lay out the basis for their interpretation, then I worry that a lot of misleading or odious claims and assumptions will just go unchecked for fear of being wrong.

You want to call someone out for what they said, you can call them out for what they said. You want to say what they said implies they meant to you, say this is what it implies or is tantammount to saying to you.

It's when it's just put out there, that you said something SO SPECIFIC and so extreme when you didn't say it, for others to see.
Then yeah, I got issues with that. I can't be a part of a place where that's cool. Everyone else is free to, they don't owe me anything.
Tha's all I really have to say.

Cool. That's your stance on the matter dude. More power to you.

I don't agree though, which is fine. Remember I'm not demanding or asking for change here or for anyone to agree with me. If what Gisambards did was acceptable here, then it was. No obligations for anyone to change things about to suit little old me.

My point is, I want to know if when I log on here tomorrow, that if I see people saying I said things I didn't say to such degrees and I wanna make a complaint, then "well that's what they felt/interpreted what you meant by something else you said" won't countermand that. And if that's the case, okay. Then that's the case. I was not under the impression that was a reality of the forum when I signed up for here.
But if it was, well I guess the joke was on me wasn't it. A four year joke but a joke none the less. I can look back and laugh at that 8-)

But people are free to think what Gisambards did was acceptable. But I just want to know that it was. It's not about anyone else, it's about me. That's what I'm after right now.
  • 2

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Kate » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:44 pm

As has been pointed out, what you are suggesting is policing thought. It would be one thing if Gis has summarized that and then said "you would probably kill trans people."

But she summarized it as she interpreted it. Much like Crimson expressing that he felt Marcuse had bullied people, or Noodle insisting that people were defending child rape. She made a post on an external site to say Tess was defending child rape, which I think most people did not interpret into her post and which she repeatedly tried to clarify, and that interpretation *should* not be against the rules because a place where people are policed on how they interpret posts would be awful.

Again, user Kate.

I would hope if something is an unfair summary, users would respond and point out why it is. And I would also hope that if X knew that Y thought that X had just called Y a useless freak, X would clarify.

Also I am wondering if alt right as an insult is a cultural difference because I am living in a place where it's not considered negative even outside of the movement, but I really am prepared to stand firm on a political movement not being an insult by default. If this was used in the context of calling someone racist with the word, that would change my opinion in this instance entirely, but would still not change my opinion on the use of the word in general. It is very confusing to me why anyone would want a current political movement to be considered an insult by default. If people said the same about libertarians and said not to call me one until I claimed it myself, I would be pretty upset at the idea that libertarianism is so repugnant to people that they are defending my honor and refusing to let people say I am associated with it. We're not all basement dwelling anarchists with 500 guns and a penchant for wearing tinfoil hats, guys. Only like. Half of us.
  • 10

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:51 pm

Kate, we've been over this every way there is to go over it, there's no need to justify it, and if I'm policing thought or anything else, so be it.

All I'm asking for is an answer to the question- is what Gisambards did acceptable here?

If it is, just say yes. That is the only thing I'm after. Just yes or no. After all these years can I not have that?

Yes or no?
  • 2

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron