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.
Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.