oldie meme but needed to bring this back due to recent incidents 😭
Equally common, unfortunately, is people who don’t state their point, they just lay out the pieces and expect you to put it together, but then if you say something bad about it suddenly that’s “not what I said”. Schrodinger’s point.
I’ve developed a response to comments that do this saying-it-but-not-saying-it thing, and while I try to judge sincerity, there are false positives. An okay approach I’ve found is just to ask people to clarify: if they say something reasonable they’re genuine, and if they dodge the question they’re a troll or someone who doesn’t want to admit they believe something bad.
how dare you say we piss on the poor
i never said that! i only piss on the MOON
Who’s more poor than the moon, though? It not just doesn’t have any money, it’s not even ALLOWED to own money!
:(
YOU HAVE 23 HOURS BEFORE THE PISS DROPLETS HIT THE FUCKING EARTH
Bravery is leaving both the ifunny and imgflip watermarks.
-“Russia should not invade a sovereign country, murder its citizens and deport their children.”
-“Umm, actually, the US were doing crimes in Syria and you should not support them.”
But by contrast
“We need to negotiate an end to the war on Ukraine.”
“Oh so you want to let Russia kill all Ukrainians?”
And then some people comment:
“Yes, we should allow Russia to cleanse the Ukraine. I’m being nuanced, I swear!”
We’re allowing endless war right now, which means fighting to the last Ukrainian. All the aid we give them is meant to keep the war going as long as possible, not to help Ukraine actually win.
One time I said AI porn was unethical (because it is) and people here thought I was calling for a ban on all porn. At no point did I say that porn was unethical as a rule, and if I did believe that I wouldn’t have mentioned AI at all.
this shit pisses me off, my instinct is to say irrationally, but i feel it’s probably totally rational to have your own carefully chosen words used in such a hamfisted perversion
yesterday i made a post saying “hey look there’s a pattern to how ableist terms begin as descriptive or medical terms and its only later they are coopted as insults, the most recent of which is ‘neurodivergent’”
top comment? “dude stop telling us to stop using the word ‘neurodivergent.’” 30+ upvotes. and when i respond saying that actually making people abandon the word wasn’t my goal? downvotes.
like what even is the point of writing words if crusty ass debate lords insist on interpretation to mean the exact opposite 80% of the time?
The short answer is that the trend you are describing does not apply to the word neurodivergent because neurodivergent is not a medical term.
Neurodivergent is a nonmedical term that describes people whose brains develop or work differently for some reason. This means the person has different strengths and struggles from people whose brains develop or work more typically. While some people who are neurodivergent have medical conditions, it also happens to people where a medical condition or diagnosis hasn’t been identified.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23154-neurodivergent
Your argument was a false equivalency that the r-slur and neurodivergent share the same origin and thus will share the same fate. The implication of such a line reasoning is that since all of these ableist words became known as insults we shouldn’t be concerned about the usage of any of them. In other words, legitimizing the r-slur and other ableist language because eventually neurodivergent will be as bad.
People in that thread explained how neurodivergent is fundamentally different. Neurodivergent is a nonmedical word people are choosing to describe themselves as that validates them as a opposed to a medical word that was chosen for them that pathologizes them. Your argument then attempted to dismiss this by saying all of these words have different origins. When in fact they have two, medical and nonmedical.
The euphemism treadmill argument presented by your meme attempts to ignore that distinction to make all the words seem equivalent. When in fact the words used before neurodivergent were always ableist because they were always hurtful even if that wasn’t initially recognized as such by neurotypical people using them.
Like trans and cis, neurodivergent and neurotypical acknowledge a difference without being opinionated about which side of that difference is normal or abnormal. These terms are opinionated about which side has privilege and which side does not. These kind of terms receive backlash from the people who find themselves in the privileged cis and neurotypical categories because they realize these labels exposes the power that comes from the privilege of being the default.
Rather than engaging in a good faith discussion about this privilege, those fearful that they will lose this privilege engage in bad faith discussions intended to undermine the mechanism that exposed that privilege. These discussions tend to involve fallacies and usage of words like nuance and objective to obscure what is really happening.
The problem for the people acting in bad faith now is, we’ve all done this song and dance multiple times now. We know what to look for. We will call it out. We get to keep telling the truth and using words that expose the truth.
two separate discussions.
i fully agree with everyone who is saying what you are saying here (including yourself). thank you! group A, call them. if you read those comments deeply, you will see i have responded with cheerful enthusiasm and accepted their contribution. i thank you for it here too.
other people, we’ll say group B (perhaps a smaller number but i never claimed it was 50/50) falsely just said “you are telling us not to use the word neurodivergent. stop it.”
please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(
Your argument disregarded the arguments that refuted your central point, group A, in a very cheerful manner and instead hyperfocused on arguments that were easier to disparage, group B.
My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion. Your insistence on going after group B, a more defensible position, is an attempt to continue this discussion under a veneer of good faith.
Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false. If you want to continue to have these discussions in good faith I highly recommend you engage with the implications of your argument and its position being incorrect.
please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(
I read the other post and did not engage because I saw it had reached the limits of a good faith discussion. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see a new post that attempts to continue that discussion without addressing the lessons learned or misconceptions exposed.
You’re not begging you’re threatening. I will not comply in advance. I will tell the truth and expose the truth. And, thankfully I am not the only person who will do so.
Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false.
Ah! There’s your misconception. I was not making an argument. I was comparing a series of similar events and noting how forces exist that may try to continue that pattern. Now, I think it’s fair to misconceive that once, upon first reading the post. But you read all the comments right? So you will see all the times where I say “this is descriptive, not perscriptive” or: “I am showing the forces at play so people are aware of them.” Call it “expressing a concern,” perhaps. Not telling people what to do or “making an argument.”
Hope this makes sense ❤️
Again, it’s super fair to misconceive it once, but fortunately I exist and have the capacity to clarify! So after this, you won’t have to worry about misunderstanding. Right? Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD
My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion.
It’s not even the end, fortunately! :D I am actively having these conversations still, and they are all in good faith. I’m actually having a lot of fun with the Group A whom you falsely claim I am disregarding. You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.
Your argument in the previous post was establishing a false equivalence. An attempt to show a pattern between two dissimilar things. That was the bailey.
With this post you have retreated to the motte, hyperfocusing on another group of arguments to distract from the arguments that refuted your central point.
Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post
By obfuscating your position, by pretending you were misunderstood, you were hoping to be unchallenged in a hypothetically more defensible position so you could claim victory.
You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.
As my argument has exposed this deception your argument is now relying on ad hominen attacks. Your playbook lacks the means to interact meaningfully with an argument that engages and refutes both your argument’s desired bailey, attacking the word neurotypical because it exposes privilege, and what turned out to be a not so defensible motte, misleading accusations of assumptions and new usages of the word nuance.
Group B identified your argument’s desire to undermine the validation people feel from using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s goal was to get people to stop using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s motivation for this is to undermine a mechanism that exposes the privilege that neurotypical people enjoy,
and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD
Your declaration of victory has defeated you.
It’d be nice if we could regulate porn in good faith. Every attempt to regulate it in the US has been an obvious attempt to shut it down, but it should be regulated like anything else. Sex toys, too. Lots of questionable substances are used in sex toys that probably shouldn’t be inserted into the human body.
Sex toys are not regulated in the us?! There are a ton of regulations in the EU unfortunately not the same in all countries but some even classify them as medical devices. There is also the standard ISO 3533 “Sex toys — Design and safety requirements for products in direct contact with genitalia, the anus, or both” which is not required at the moment? is still used as a guideline.
None beyond that ISO standard, which yes, is advisory. If it can be shown to be dangerously unsafe, it’s subject to a recall, but that’s only going to happen if the batteries tend to explode or something like that. There’s lots of unsafe types of plastic that get through.
https://www.compliancegate.com/sex-toys-regulations-united-states/
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent agency of the US government, overseeing the safety of consumer products. It develops and enforces safety standards in the United States. It also conducts research related to hazards and risks to the public caused by consumer products.
The CPSC has not yet developed a specific safety standard for sex toys. However, importers and manufacturers are required to report to the CPSC if their product could create a substantial risk of injury to the public, for example, because of a manufacturing defect or a design issue.
In practice, an unsafe sex toy is subject to a recall, regardless of whether it is covered by mandatory safety standards. Hence, importers or manufacturers of sex toys should ensure that their products are safe, for instance by complying with relevant voluntary safety standards.
What…. This is on par with any kind of internet discourse. It’s pretty much why I hardly ever post prior to Lemmy. It doesn’t matter how well articulated the post, SOMEONE will find the need to correct or clarify unnecessarily.
it’s really sad because i take great pride and pleasure from reading other people’s thoughts and posts. but when i try to give back, it’s immediately jumped on by dogpilers and “oh you actually meant something else…” people. and when i do the bare minimum to defend myself, they slap back with the “okay buddy, sure” and downvote my defense so it’s invisible to other readers.
needless to say my blocklist is nearing 100 users.
Wanna get mad? Yesterday drag made a similar post criticising Lemmy, but it focused on the transphobia on the platform. -46 downvotes. Thread full of transphobia anyway. On Blahaj. https://lemmy.nz/post/17415487
hmm i honestly just don’t understand what the post is trying to say. it’s a bit unclear to me but im sorry there was confusion and hard feelings going on
Anyone who thinks pretending to be trans is an effective troll hates trans people.
see i agree with that statement when written out like that. the post doesn’t really do anything to get me to that notion on its own though.
Hm. Maybe it was too subtle? Cunk is explaining why “trolls pretending to be trans” is supposed to be a problem on Lemmy, using her usual brand of accidentally telling it like it is. Lemmy only has a “troll problem” because Lemmy users hate trans people. No trans hate, no troll problem. If everyone respected trans people, nobody would be getting called a troll. If anyone actually tried to troll that way, they’d be met with acceptance and have no power.
hmmm try workshopping different ways to express this thought, i’m quite lost sorry :(
and downvote my defense so it’s invisible to other readers.
Lemmy isn’t an endless torrent of comments. Even downvoted ones get reached.
Prior to the US election, there were many people that did this exact thing- only it was “oh yeah? Well… you support genocide!”
They’re rarely here anymore. Which is what was predicted that typically warranted their response to begin with.
Literally I see all the same names and sometimes still even saying the same things though mostly not cause there is other things to talk about.
You aren’t seeing it cause you aren’t engaging in hourly political threads because of an upcoming election. It’s disingenuous to say the conversation has disappeared just because you aren’t participating in it anymore.
I’m a mod in a relatively popular politically themed community. Trust me when I say that many of the people that were accusing everyone of genocide support are no longer actively posting.
…and make note that I said “many” and not “all-” as I am well aware of how nuance isn’t a very popular concept around here.
Lastly, for your edification: Not engaging in a discussion is not the equivalent to not reading it or not paying attention to it.
While I don’t want to deny that people try to put words into others mouths, I think context is still important. It is possible and even quite typical to send messages beyond the meaning of the actual words used in a statement and simply playing dumb when someone calls you out for doing that is also not a great look.
Think of going to a waffles-convention and just walking around claiming that you, in fact, like pancakes. Of course people are going to assume you’re a troll.
It’s important to think of different perspectives and at least consider if something you meant in a very innocent way might still not sit right with someone else. Certainly not easy to do, mistakes will always happen, but honestly trying makes a huge difference imo.
Let me see in reality:
I use a camera to capture picture
So you don’t like artists?
Oh so you dont support piracy?
Wow, so you hate screenshots??!
Oh so you love screenshots very much?
Why doesn’t @[email protected] just MARRY screenshots if they like them so much?
A large portion of the world is experiencing political polarization. I see the same things happening on Lemmy happen on other social media websites.
The “if you don’t agree with me you must have the exact opposite opinion” approach to debate seems to be more a problem of the participants than the platform.
wow can’t believe this guy wants me to kiss nazis on the lips /s
I said don’t kiss Nazi ass. That’s not the same thing.
How can you not like waffles! That’s outrageous! I’m so triggered right now!
That’s a waffleturd take if I’ve ever seen one
You’re just a shill for Big Pancake!
I read that Big Pancake wants to leave the French Toast Accords
Pretty much every time I dare to say anything negative about Russia or China I’m swarmed with illiterate tankie lemmings who jump into the conclusion that criticising one empire automatically means supporting the other empire.
I find that people that do this are often well informed on leftist theory, but know almost no history. I guess it’s hard to accept that governing is exceptionally difficult and governments built with the best intentions are still subject to authoritarianism. Also, those governments weren’t built with the best intentions, lol.
Zzzzzz
Great. Another corpo-fascist centrist who doesn’t understand the Overton Window.
TBF, I understand this annoying kind of ‘reading into it’. at the same time, if someone starts dropping dogwhistles or starts dancing around something in a convo, i am definitely gonna read into that shit.
If you don’t like waffles just say it…
Yep that’s one of my pet peeves about the Internet. People love to try to put words in your mouth. It gets a bit tiring having to tell every one of those jabronis that I never said any of those words, and they should re-read what I did actually write instead.
If I see someone’s reply start with “So, you…” - I’m already rolling my eyes so fast that I’m time traveling back to nineteen-blackandwhite. In general, it’s an overly reductive view on the statement that misrepresents the initial comment in order to try and spark a pointless argument.
It’s exhausting.
(in b4 “so you hate reading comments then?” 😂)
e: it’s not just Lemmy to be fair - the other popular aggregator, most tabloid news sites with comments, and a lot of gaming news sites with social interaction are largely the same.
so you want to have nuanced and reasonable discussions on the internet?
So you want to be sane on internet?
In all honesty, I’ve found a more willing group of people to discuss things with - even if a lot of the time, our platforms and views are very different. There’s a larger acceptance on Lemmy of other people’s views and their right to hold them which is super cool, every now and then though I get brought down to earth with a bump.
That’s the internet, though!
I like to insult and block these people. My fear of course, with Lemmy being so small, is I will block everyone. Then again, that’s still better than dealing with illiterate, contrarian assholes
I feel the same way, then I look at my blocklist and it’s just lemmy.ml, anime subs, 3 people, some political terms, and a bot. I also have a .world account I use when I want to view the whole Lemmy experience anyways. Tbh I still feel kinda bad about blocking .ml, there was some cool peeps on there but I just can’t deal with all the tankie drama
I also blocked ml, it just ain’t worth it. I figure the cool people will eventually leave for another instance anyways
You can block terms?
I use Voyager (mobile app), I have no idea if you can on desktop but I would assume so.
Thanks for the tip. I have Voyager, I didn’t realize you could use it like that.
And yet, you assumed an image on catbox would work on my device. Interesting.
skill issue, sorry
lol. It’s just iOS, voyager, vpn, and ad blocking are not conducive to seeing hosted images.
I like Mlem a lot more than voyager. The only thing it isn’t as good at is videos. I’ve never had an issue with catbox on Mlem
I’m on iOS, using voyager, proton vpn, and a 3rd party ad blocker and the image loaded just fine for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Same. But sometimes they don’t.
Me when I talk to my wife…
you too? im sorry dude
Idk, she’s super cool to me.
😆 top notch willful misinterpretation 👌✨
It’s okay 😁 we’re both very open about, and aware of, this issue. So I just let her know it’s happening and we giggle about it (sometimes). 😄
