3 ms·

No one is changing the meaning of anything. You're the one making personal attacks against someone who was just answering a question. Plenty of people would se

No one is changing the meaning of anything. You're the one making personal attacks against someone who was just answering a question. Plenty of people would see the editorial board of the NYT as "visible" and Jeong is certainly far-left (unless it's a moderate opinion to blast white men publicly for years on end). You should try to stick to arguing the facts and leave the personal attack nonsense out of it. Calling other users "toddlers" doesn't help your argument.

pvg 8y ago
If you change the words, you've changed the meaning. That seems like it should be uncontroversial and straightforward. If your argument is based on that not somehow being the case, I think we can safely say it's a dumb argument. This isn't a personal attack, and I haven't called anyone a toddler. Although if one then takes it as a personal attack, I'd be inclined to think that person is a bit of a snowflake. But I wouldn't say it because that would be namecalling. Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. That's neither a left, nor a right nor a swift uppercut to the jaw.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  What words have been changed? > Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. It sure sounds like it's you changing the meaning of words. Is it a right wing trait to attack men and white people or is it left wing? That statement seems straightforward and uncontroversial.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Candace Owens changed 'white' to 'Jewish' and got suspended. So those words. As to Jeong's tweets, I don't think they're attacks on men or white people. If you think they are and find them rude and offensive, fair enough, that's a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste and what I am claiming is an obviously poopy argument is insisting that replacing 'white people' with 'Jews' produces statements of equivalent offensiveness and appallingness. That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport [1]. [1] [1994 V. Vega, J. Winnifield]
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      > That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport A lot of people will tell you that it actually is equivalent because attacking someone's gender or race is always bad. That seems to be the fundamental disagreement in both sides of this argument.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Thirty Helens will tell you that the quality of an argument is not a function of the number of people repeating it and the quality of this one, even the way you just described it above is plainly miserable. Not all bad things are equivalent. Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. If your argument was that you find her tweets offensive and rude I'd try to convince you you might be misinterpreting them but at the end of the day, it's your feelings and your reaction and it doesn't require any great feats of empathy on my end to acknowledge some might find this stuff bothersome or to nod along at the suggestion that casual generalizations are fraught and the habit of them is to be avoided and is probably just not a great thing to begin with, in almost all contexts. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that this is the same and deserves identical opprobrium as, say, anti-semitism. You know, anti-semitism, the prejudice with a long history of actual oppression that was also a fundamental tenet of an ideology that perpetrated the industrial extermination of millions of people for their ethnicity, that still exists, the effects of which still reverberate through our culture and society, etc. Compared to some people being miffed at some tweets. To call an argument drawing a parallel between these merely dumb and ignorant is bend-over-backwards polite and charitable.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        > Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. But we are talking about racial slurs and not just "rude" language. I don't agree that there's some hierarchy of racism where changing the race moves you up and down the offensive scale. All racism is equally bad, yes even that pointed toward white people.

pvg 8y ago

If you change the words, you've changed the meaning. That seems like it should be uncontroversial and straightforward. If your argument is based on that not somehow being the case, I think we can safely say it's a dumb argument. This isn't a personal attack, and I haven't called anyone a toddler. Although if one then takes it as a personal attack, I'd be inclined to think that person is a bit of a snowflake. But I wouldn't say it because that would be namecalling. Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. That's neither a left, nor a right nor a swift uppercut to the jaw.

malvosenior 8y ago
What words have been changed? > Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. It sure sounds like it's you changing the meaning of words. Is it a right wing trait to attack men and white people or is it left wing? That statement seems straightforward and uncontroversial.
- pvg 8y ago
  Candace Owens changed 'white' to 'Jewish' and got suspended. So those words. As to Jeong's tweets, I don't think they're attacks on men or white people. If you think they are and find them rude and offensive, fair enough, that's a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste and what I am claiming is an obviously poopy argument is insisting that replacing 'white people' with 'Jews' produces statements of equivalent offensiveness and appallingness. That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport [1]. [1] [1994 V. Vega, J. Winnifield]
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport A lot of people will tell you that it actually is equivalent because attacking someone's gender or race is always bad. That seems to be the fundamental disagreement in both sides of this argument.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Thirty Helens will tell you that the quality of an argument is not a function of the number of people repeating it and the quality of this one, even the way you just described it above is plainly miserable. Not all bad things are equivalent. Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. If your argument was that you find her tweets offensive and rude I'd try to convince you you might be misinterpreting them but at the end of the day, it's your feelings and your reaction and it doesn't require any great feats of empathy on my end to acknowledge some might find this stuff bothersome or to nod along at the suggestion that casual generalizations are fraught and the habit of them is to be avoided and is probably just not a great thing to begin with, in almost all contexts. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that this is the same and deserves identical opprobrium as, say, anti-semitism. You know, anti-semitism, the prejudice with a long history of actual oppression that was also a fundamental tenet of an ideology that perpetrated the industrial extermination of millions of people for their ethnicity, that still exists, the effects of which still reverberate through our culture and society, etc. Compared to some people being miffed at some tweets. To call an argument drawing a parallel between these merely dumb and ignorant is bend-over-backwards polite and charitable.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        > Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. But we are talking about racial slurs and not just "rude" language. I don't agree that there's some hierarchy of racism where changing the race moves you up and down the offensive scale. All racism is equally bad, yes even that pointed toward white people.