3 ms·
If only you spent the amount of effort analyzing his essay rather than my comments. > Words in isolation mean absolutely nothing? Context matters sure, but not
by pm90 6y ago
If only you spent the amount of effort analyzing his essay rather than my comments.
> Words in isolation mean absolutely nothing? Context matters sure, but not to the extent that actual words mean nothing at all. Your position here is that what people say they believe doesn't actually matter in the slightest, and should be ignored in favour of vaguely defined "context". Who defines this context? I guess you do. In fact in this world view Cotton can say something as clearly as possible and it should still be ignored, because what he "really" means is - obviously - the exact opposite.
I’ve provided enough reasoning about why context is important in my other comments and I’ve sure you’ve read that since you’ve been reading all of them. Context is important to understand what the outcome of a policy results in. It is not an academic debate as people on this forum seem to think. You can be a racist without saying explicitly racist stuff; adding a disclaimer that one is not racist doesn’t really change anything.
> So now I think we're all hopelessly confused. Which is it? Is Cotton saying "exactly what he meant to say" or is he saying the opposite of what he meant?
That was in response to 2 different things. He said exactly what he meant wrt giving no quarter (isolated tweet, different from essay) while paying lip service to the distinction between peaceful protestors and rioters in the essay. Which is why, again, context matters.
> Finally, you state "I’m trying to address the reasons why his op ed was deemed to be so revolting". I'm afraid you aren't succeeding. I can't figure out if it was revolting because of the words he wrote, or the words he didn't write, or if those words are meaningless and it's all about "context", in which case it appears no op-ed written by him could have ever passed muster regardless of what it said. This looks a lot like a slippery argument that Sen Cotton simply shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.
It’s possible, yes. I am human and I make mistakes. Not perfect. But the amount of length that people like you go to try and discredit others rather than take a moment to understand another perspective is staggering, while simultaneously claiming to “fail to see why his essay was controversial”. It points to not a failure to understand but an unwillingness to.
- thu2111 6y agoNow you're mis-representing what I wrote too! I have never claimed I “fail to see why his essay was controversial”. Nobody has, that phrase appears nowhere in this thread except your post, yet you actually put it in quotes as if it's a direct repetition of a claim I made. It's obvious why his essay was controversial: it's about a controversial topic that many people feel strongly about. "the amount of length that people like you go to try and discredit others rather than take a moment to understand another perspective is staggering" We're trying. If you perceive simply repeating your own words back at you as an attempt to discredit you, that should suggest why none of us can understand your position. The point of this exercise is thus to try and get you to explain yourself more clearly and ideally, to stop constantly misrepresenting what other people are saying. So I will repeat myself. Your core problem is that you don't believe in arguing with what people's written positions actually are. Instead you keep stuffing words in their mouth and then when called on it, you blow it off by claiming it's all about context. No, sorry, that's not acceptable. This kind of behaviour drives reasonable people nuts. And especially this belief: "You can be a racist without saying explicitly racist stuff; adding a disclaimer that one is not racist doesn’t really change anything". Your position is that once you decided someone is a racist they're a racist. It doesn't matter if they never said any "racist stuff". In fact it doesn't matter how carefully they choose their words: you won't even read them whilst claiming you did, and even whilst telling other people to read more carefully. Because "it's fine to be wrong". This is "she's a witch" level of debate.
- pm90 6y ago> Your position is that once you decided someone is a racist they're a racist. It doesn't matter if they never said any "racist stuff". In fact it doesn't matter how carefully they choose their words: you won't even read them whilst claiming you did, and even whilst telling other people to read more carefully. Because "it's fine to be wrong". Lol how little self reflection. You accuse me of “stuffing words in others mouth” when it is you who keep doing it. Good luck with that. It’s clear that you’re not interested in a good faith argument so I’m going to leave this conversation.