3 ms·

How is "but it's optional" a forceful challenge or a healthy debate?

by musage 9y ago

closeparen 9y ago
It isn't - it's lazy and inarticulate - but pokemongoaway is complaining about the general theme of people challenging the scope or severity of a problem. There is a pretty significant difference between "$villian is doing $bad_thing to people" and "$villian is providing people the option to do $bad_thing to themselves and they are taking it." That's worth pointing out, particularly when $bad_thing is to read opposition news.
- musage 9y ago
  It's nowhere near that clear cut. http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-die-Welt/Panorama/2017/Oktober/Es-ist-wieder-soweit-Langenscheidt-kuert-das-Jugendwort-2017 http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-die-W... One of the "unwords" nominated for 2017 is "sozialtot". That's "socially dead" as a synonym for not having a Facebook account. As for Google, when everybody has their email at google I can craft my packets by hand, Google will still slurp them up. But oh, it's all optional, that goes without saying so it has to be said all the damn time. > particularly when $bad_thing is to read opposition news. You don't even know if "and their use is purely optional." refers to even one word more than the headline. If it does, you don't get to pick and chose that conveniently. The article also contains sentences such as > All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web. Where does people doing something to themselves even figure into that? We're still at that part where someone blamed the victim and you're contorting to excuse that as something noble at heart, if lazy and inarticulate.
pokemongoaway 9y ago
Exactly, unwillingness to engage in proper debate is more of an authoritarian strategy than my line or questioning.
- musage 9y ago
  I think it's projection of the negative traits of what one is subservient to on those who see through it.

How is "but it's optional" a forceful challenge or a healthy debate?

by musage 9y ago

How is "but it's optional" a forceful challenge or a healthy debate?

It isn't - it's lazy and inarticulate - but pokemongoaway is complaining about the general theme of people challenging the scope or severity of a problem. There is a pretty significant difference between "$villian is doing $bad_thing to people" and "$villian is providing people the option to do $bad_thing to themselves and they are taking it." That's worth pointing out, particularly when $bad_thing is to read opposition news.

musage 9y ago
It's nowhere near that clear cut. http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-die-Welt/Panorama/2017/Oktober/Es-ist-wieder-soweit-Langenscheidt-kuert-das-Jugendwort-2017 http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-die-W... One of the "unwords" nominated for 2017 is "sozialtot". That's "socially dead" as a synonym for not having a Facebook account. As for Google, when everybody has their email at google I can craft my packets by hand, Google will still slurp them up. But oh, it's all optional, that goes without saying so it has to be said all the damn time. > particularly when $bad_thing is to read opposition news. You don't even know if "and their use is purely optional." refers to even one word more than the headline. If it does, you don't get to pick and chose that conveniently. The article also contains sentences such as > All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web. Where does people doing something to themselves even figure into that? We're still at that part where someone blamed the victim and you're contorting to excuse that as something noble at heart, if lazy and inarticulate.

pokemongoaway 9y ago

Exactly, unwillingness to engage in proper debate is more of an authoritarian strategy than my line or questioning.

musage 9y ago
I think it's projection of the negative traits of what one is subservient to on those who see through it.