5 ms·
You are correct, there are literal truths. Some person factually used some set of words in a particular order. The part that people care about is how we inter
by curryst 7y ago
You are correct, there are literal truths. Some person factually used some set of words in a particular order. The part that people care about is how we interpret those words. It being fact does not make the implication incorrect.
In an extreme example, if someone says "There are extremists in the world, and I am not going to be one of them", I can quote that as "There are extremists in the world, and I am ... one of them", which is factually true, that is a portion of what was said. The interpretation is the polar opposite, but it is factually true.
Likewise, there are facts that are misleading, but true. "The Earth is at the center of our solar system". It's a perfectly valid statement; the rotation of planets can be modeled where the Earth is at a fixed point and the other planets moved around it. It's messy, and the movements look extremely erratic, but it's perfectly valid to be modeled that way.
There are also facts that are true, given a set of circumstances. "I weigh 7 pounds". It's not true on Earth, but in the correct gravitational field, I do weigh 7 pounds. Determining whether that statement is true depends on the implication; was I implying that it is true on Earth or not? That depends on the context of that statement, and on how you interpret the context.
- Izkata 7y ago> In an extreme example, if someone says "There are extremists in the world, and I am not going to be one of them", I can quote that as "There are extremists in the world, and I am ... one of them", which is factually true, that is a portion of what was said. The interpretation is the polar opposite, but it is factually true. Not so extreme considering this kind of editing is basically what led to Count Dankula's court case and conviction.
- joshuamorton 7y agoThat's a reach. Doing explicitly offensive things as satire and being selectively quoted aren't similar.
- 0x4477 7y agoWhy is it wrong to say explicitly offensive things and why should someone be legally punished for it? Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive and to what degree?
- MadWombat 7y ago> Why is it wrong to say explicitly offensive things Because they are offensive > and why should someone be legally punished for it Because that is what legal systems are for. Punishing people who do things we, as a society, find objectionable > Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive and to what degree? That is a rather general question, but generally speaking, the law makers and the legal system decide things like that. Now, mind you, personally, I support a rather radical version of freedom of expression. I think almost every kind of censorship is ultimately detrimental to society, but I am not naive enough to ask "but who gets to decide" or "but why cannot I"
- Izkata 7y agoIt wasn't satire; sharing and reporting on it removed the joke context, leading some people to infer satire and others to infer he actually held nazi beliefs. The original video started with him saying something like "my girlfriend thinks her pug is the cutest thing in the world, so I'm going to turn it into the worst thing I can think of".