Yeah, I meant to reply initially but things got in the way.
Sure, if something I say doesn’t add up please let me know.
To put it simply, I think statements like “yt people bad” or any of the variants are too reductive for their explanations to ultimately matter, regardless of merit.
If 1 person sees your message, challenges you, and positively receives your explanation that’s great! That is the ideal circumstance. What about the people who don’t think they need an explanation, either because they “know” (in quotes because, again, most people likely have not read as much about this as you) or those that just outright refuse what you’re saying? The reality is that for that 1 person you enlightened to the truth, 100 more people saw it and you do not know if they actually read your explanation.
Not choosing your words carefully might seem fine, because you think having the moral high ground precludes any need. Ideally, yes, this is how it should be. The truth should reign supreme, but we both know it doesn’t otherwise we wouldn’t be dealing with any of this in the first place.
The reality is that how you think it should be perceived is not how it will be perceived by the majority of people who will see your message. Whether they are for or against the message in your explanation. One side sees it as being attacked, the other genuinely hates white people (when the reality is they hate rich people, and it just so happens that the “whiteness” you mentioned is related to being rich).
A place like Lemmy, with such a small community? Makes a little more sense, as these ideas are shared pretty well here and discussion is (for the most part, looking at you Hexbear) ok. On literally any platform with a sizeable userbase (lurkers)? Absolutely not, the net result is ultimately in favor of polarization. Whether they’re feeding one side or the other, it flows both ways.
I am not of the belief that continuing to enable polarization on both sides will lead to a positive outcome for anyone involved. Am I asking you to be prescient, perfectly predicting how every individual person will perceive your words? No, that’s ridiculous. You’d end up never saying anything out of anxiety, and that’s just as bad. But pretending that this kind of rhetoric is somehow acceptable is wrong, especially when we have so many words to choose from.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying basically “you may have a perfectly reasonable, consistent understanding that I can’t oppose in good faith but because other people might not like it you shouldn’t say it”?
I want to also point out that you put the words “white people bad” in the mouth of the top level commenter. If you’re so concerned about people getting spooked by that rhetoric then maybe don’t drag it into a conversation!
What a difference a month makes! It’s like I’m talking to a different person!
You’re right you didn’t explicitly say that I shouldn’t use those words, but when you say that they’re too reductive, they make people feel attacked, result in polarization and are unacceptable it’s hard to reach the conclusion “oh, they’re just saying I should be more careful when using unacceptable rhetoric”. When something is not acceptable I don’t generally consider it fine if used carefully.
And I want to restate theyre your words. If the mere invocation makes people tune out and ignore the speaker, why did you say them?
Isn’t all this predicated on the assumption too that I’d go into long winded detailed explanations when not writing comments on the anarchist memes board of lemmy.ml?
And to connect a string from my earlier comment, I said your reply was confusing and asked you to make it clearer. Difficult to interpret seemingly out of context statements like “we wouldn’t be dealing with any of this in the first place” were what confused me. What did you mean by that? What are we dealing with and how would truth reigning supreme keep us out of it?
Yeah, you completely missed the fact that I referred to the full spectrum of people that will respond to your post. Both people that disagree with you, and agree with you.
Ideally speaking yes, your long winded explanations should immediately strike as true in others minds. They don’t, sorry to burst your bubble.
Also, no, I very explicitly stated “yt people bad, or any of the variants”. I’m aware you don’t read, hence the comment about skimming.
Imagine considering yourself sound of mind when you can’t even handle talking to people that are essentially children. Stay on that high horse.
I’m even more confused now. None of these people who disagree and feel attacked and repulsed by my rhetoric are here. None of them responded to my comments. None of them even downvoted my comments except one on my first reply to you.
Why are you bringing up people who aren’t here a month after the fact?
What other variant of “white people bad” is the topic of our discussion? How are variants germane to our conversation?
There are plenty of people who might not respond well to long winded explanations all the time, and if I were talking to a person in that situation I wouldn’t be talking like I am here and now, because it’s different and we speak differently than we write.
I’m starting to get the feeling that you disagree and feel attacked and repulsed by my rhetoric, which seems like a fair change from a month ago. Is that so?
talk about making up for lost time!
i am genuinely confused by this comment. can you maybe make it a little clearer?
Yeah, I meant to reply initially but things got in the way.
Sure, if something I say doesn’t add up please let me know.
To put it simply, I think statements like “yt people bad” or any of the variants are too reductive for their explanations to ultimately matter, regardless of merit.
If 1 person sees your message, challenges you, and positively receives your explanation that’s great! That is the ideal circumstance. What about the people who don’t think they need an explanation, either because they “know” (in quotes because, again, most people likely have not read as much about this as you) or those that just outright refuse what you’re saying? The reality is that for that 1 person you enlightened to the truth, 100 more people saw it and you do not know if they actually read your explanation.
Not choosing your words carefully might seem fine, because you think having the moral high ground precludes any need. Ideally, yes, this is how it should be. The truth should reign supreme, but we both know it doesn’t otherwise we wouldn’t be dealing with any of this in the first place.
The reality is that how you think it should be perceived is not how it will be perceived by the majority of people who will see your message. Whether they are for or against the message in your explanation. One side sees it as being attacked, the other genuinely hates white people (when the reality is they hate rich people, and it just so happens that the “whiteness” you mentioned is related to being rich).
A place like Lemmy, with such a small community? Makes a little more sense, as these ideas are shared pretty well here and discussion is (for the most part, looking at you Hexbear) ok. On literally any platform with a sizeable userbase (lurkers)? Absolutely not, the net result is ultimately in favor of polarization. Whether they’re feeding one side or the other, it flows both ways.
I am not of the belief that continuing to enable polarization on both sides will lead to a positive outcome for anyone involved. Am I asking you to be prescient, perfectly predicting how every individual person will perceive your words? No, that’s ridiculous. You’d end up never saying anything out of anxiety, and that’s just as bad. But pretending that this kind of rhetoric is somehow acceptable is wrong, especially when we have so many words to choose from.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying basically “you may have a perfectly reasonable, consistent understanding that I can’t oppose in good faith but because other people might not like it you shouldn’t say it”?
I want to also point out that you put the words “white people bad” in the mouth of the top level commenter. If you’re so concerned about people getting spooked by that rhetoric then maybe don’t drag it into a conversation!
No, I said you should be more careful when saying it. Great way to say you skim.
What a difference a month makes! It’s like I’m talking to a different person!
You’re right you didn’t explicitly say that I shouldn’t use those words, but when you say that they’re too reductive, they make people feel attacked, result in polarization and are unacceptable it’s hard to reach the conclusion “oh, they’re just saying I should be more careful when using unacceptable rhetoric”. When something is not acceptable I don’t generally consider it fine if used carefully.
And I want to restate theyre your words. If the mere invocation makes people tune out and ignore the speaker, why did you say them?
Isn’t all this predicated on the assumption too that I’d go into long winded detailed explanations when not writing comments on the anarchist memes board of lemmy.ml?
And to connect a string from my earlier comment, I said your reply was confusing and asked you to make it clearer. Difficult to interpret seemingly out of context statements like “we wouldn’t be dealing with any of this in the first place” were what confused me. What did you mean by that? What are we dealing with and how would truth reigning supreme keep us out of it?
Yeah, you completely missed the fact that I referred to the full spectrum of people that will respond to your post. Both people that disagree with you, and agree with you.
Ideally speaking yes, your long winded explanations should immediately strike as true in others minds. They don’t, sorry to burst your bubble.
Also, no, I very explicitly stated “yt people bad, or any of the variants”. I’m aware you don’t read, hence the comment about skimming.
Imagine considering yourself sound of mind when you can’t even handle talking to people that are essentially children. Stay on that high horse.
I’m even more confused now. None of these people who disagree and feel attacked and repulsed by my rhetoric are here. None of them responded to my comments. None of them even downvoted my comments except one on my first reply to you.
Why are you bringing up people who aren’t here a month after the fact?
What other variant of “white people bad” is the topic of our discussion? How are variants germane to our conversation?
There are plenty of people who might not respond well to long winded explanations all the time, and if I were talking to a person in that situation I wouldn’t be talking like I am here and now, because it’s different and we speak differently than we write.
I’m starting to get the feeling that you disagree and feel attacked and repulsed by my rhetoric, which seems like a fair change from a month ago. Is that so?
Fucks sake, every “problem” you’re bringing up I’ve already addressed. You’re confused because you don’t read 😂😂.
Quote em if you got em. Keep me on track instead of making combative jabs.