3 ms·

Words ... have ... meanings. You can't just say something was a metaphor because you want it to be.

goatinaboat 7y ago
You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.
- bscphil 7y ago
  > My point is that either everything is or nothing is. Come on, you can't seriously believe that either everything is metaphorical or nothing is. You have to be trolling me. And these people aren't my friends. For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left. For example, look at this editorial from only a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/australian-society-is-obsessed-with-masculinity-and-its-making-me-tired https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/austra... It's right in the subtitle! Do you think this person wants to literally go get a torch and burn "the gender binary" to the ground? It doesn't even make sense. There's also no way you can interpret RMS as using a metaphor. He gave a defense of Minsky. How are metaphors even relevant? Are you trying to say he was joking?
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? Are centrists allowed to say it? There is no reason not to take it as a threat of arson, or hate speech if you prefer. Words have meanings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that’s another very common figure of speech.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? No. Everyone is allowed to say it, unless it's clear from the context that they are literally threatening violence. In this case, quite the opposite is true. The author of that statement says in the next paragraph that they want the powerful people at MIT turned out if necessary to get rid of Stallman. > Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes. I mean, come on, the person who said this was a real threat against MIT wasn't serious. Surely you can admit that.

You literally just did do that! My point is that either everything is or nothing is. You can’t say your friends controversial statements are metaphorical while damning your enemies for the same things.

bscphil 7y ago
> My point is that either everything is or nothing is. Come on, you can't seriously believe that either everything is metaphorical or nothing is. You have to be trolling me. And these people aren't my friends. For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left. For example, look at this editorial from only a month ago: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/australian-society-is-obsessed-with-masculinity-and-its-making-me-tired https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/24/austra... It's right in the subtitle! Do you think this person wants to literally go get a torch and burn "the gender binary" to the ground? It doesn't even make sense. There's also no way you can interpret RMS as using a metaphor. He gave a defense of Minsky. How are metaphors even relevant? Are you trying to say he was joking?
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  For the record, "burn it to the ground" is a very common figure of speech on the left But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? Are centrists allowed to say it? There is no reason not to take it as a threat of arson, or hate speech if you prefer. Words have meanings. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, that’s another very common figure of speech.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > But if a right winger says exactly the same words they are to be taken literally? No. Everyone is allowed to say it, unless it's clear from the context that they are literally threatening violence. In this case, quite the opposite is true. The author of that statement says in the next paragraph that they want the powerful people at MIT turned out if necessary to get rid of Stallman. > Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built from the ashes. I mean, come on, the person who said this was a real threat against MIT wasn't serious. Surely you can admit that.