4 ms·

Yes, and? What's your objection?

akomtu 5y ago
Where did you see an objection? At the plain language level, it's a neutral observation that such euphemism exists and I love it. Interpretation of why I made this observation and why I love it is up to the reader. In other words, my statement is like the Rorschach test that reveals subconscious biases of the subject. I find it entertaining that people map their biases onto my words, assign these biases to me and then accuse me for having the biases; but in essence they are really accusing themselves.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 5y ago
  Its not a euphemism though, so you have your own barely subconscious bias but you try to deflect any criticism by saying its the respondent's subconscious bias hm, I didn't respond to your first comment but now its clear that you'll gaslight either way, so let me fail your Rorschach test for everyone else: you are having contempt for mostly women and that is the definition of misogyny, you are a misogynist.
  - akomtu 5y ago
    Let's analyze my phrase again. Its structure is "euphemism A equates B and C". For some reason you picked B and decided that it's treated unfairly, despite B and C are on equal standing in my phrase. I could even swap B and C without changing the meaning and subtext of my phrase.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I decided that they are all content creators of equal standing if they are in the action of creating content, I don't find that to be a euphemism or your meta interpretation to be anywhere near accurate Lets start ”why do you think its a euphemism” and work up from there if creating content content creator = true its not necessary for me or you to consider that a “less harsh” substitute word for anything else, the definition of euphamism
      - akomtu 5y ago
        My interpretation may as well be "music is a waste of time and I find it offensive that the so-called music-makers are somehow equated with webcam models via that euphemism". Besides, it's a bad euphemism because webcam models don't create content, they create emotions. They are entertainers. Hardly anyone would call a strip dancer a "content creator". Edit. Another possible interpretation: "I love that this euphemism finally equates webcam models with writers and musicians".
        vmception 5y ago
        here you go again, trying to get us to simply alter your equation to prove that there are so many ways to interpret it! Its not a euphemism. They create content because it is text, audio and video, copyrighted by the mere existence of them. Get it through your thick head: its not a euphemism. Stop trying to make it happen. You want to have a completely separate discussion under the most poorly contrived pretext possible. You have poorly creating a prompt, you poorly accomplished trolling. "Poorly" was a euphemism for "sucked at". Isn't it great how we're so progressive that we can equate your poor trolling with improvisational theatre these days? No, no, don't flag this that's just your subconscious bias to see it that way! Its you and everyone else that misunderstand that I actually love that your non-disciplined hackjob of emotion finally has a platform to be compared with such respected trades!
        akomtu 5y ago
        You're fixating on that euphemism word, but it's actually irrelevant. You can even remove "euphemism" from my first statement and its meaning won't change. The key word there is "equates". Besides, I wouldn't lose it over this fairly boring argument. Emotion is a powerful tool when you keep it on leash, but is a source of misery when it leads you.
        vmception 5y ago
        Yes it is a pedantic premise and conversation I agree that its great that there is a normalized inclusive context that allows the benign similarities between philosophers and music to be acknowledged, instead of their less benign differences such as the philosopher’s erotic performances

Where did you see an objection? At the plain language level, it's a neutral observation that such euphemism exists and I love it. Interpretation of why I made this observation and why I love it is up to the reader. In other words, my statement is like the Rorschach test that reveals subconscious biases of the subject. I find it entertaining that people map their biases onto my words, assign these biases to me and then accuse me for having the biases; but in essence they are really accusing themselves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vmception 5y ago
Its not a euphemism though, so you have your own barely subconscious bias but you try to deflect any criticism by saying its the respondent's subconscious bias hm, I didn't respond to your first comment but now its clear that you'll gaslight either way, so let me fail your Rorschach test for everyone else: you are having contempt for mostly women and that is the definition of misogyny, you are a misogynist.
- akomtu 5y ago
  Let's analyze my phrase again. Its structure is "euphemism A equates B and C". For some reason you picked B and decided that it's treated unfairly, despite B and C are on equal standing in my phrase. I could even swap B and C without changing the meaning and subtext of my phrase.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I decided that they are all content creators of equal standing if they are in the action of creating content, I don't find that to be a euphemism or your meta interpretation to be anywhere near accurate Lets start ”why do you think its a euphemism” and work up from there if creating content content creator = true its not necessary for me or you to consider that a “less harsh” substitute word for anything else, the definition of euphamism
    - akomtu 5y ago
      My interpretation may as well be "music is a waste of time and I find it offensive that the so-called music-makers are somehow equated with webcam models via that euphemism". Besides, it's a bad euphemism because webcam models don't create content, they create emotions. They are entertainers. Hardly anyone would call a strip dancer a "content creator". Edit. Another possible interpretation: "I love that this euphemism finally equates webcam models with writers and musicians".
      - vmception 5y ago
        here you go again, trying to get us to simply alter your equation to prove that there are so many ways to interpret it! Its not a euphemism. They create content because it is text, audio and video, copyrighted by the mere existence of them. Get it through your thick head: its not a euphemism. Stop trying to make it happen. You want to have a completely separate discussion under the most poorly contrived pretext possible. You have poorly creating a prompt, you poorly accomplished trolling. "Poorly" was a euphemism for "sucked at". Isn't it great how we're so progressive that we can equate your poor trolling with improvisational theatre these days? No, no, don't flag this that's just your subconscious bias to see it that way! Its you and everyone else that misunderstand that I actually love that your non-disciplined hackjob of emotion finally has a platform to be compared with such respected trades!
        akomtu 5y ago
        You're fixating on that euphemism word, but it's actually irrelevant. You can even remove "euphemism" from my first statement and its meaning won't change. The key word there is "equates". Besides, I wouldn't lose it over this fairly boring argument. Emotion is a powerful tool when you keep it on leash, but is a source of misery when it leads you.
        vmception 5y ago
        Yes it is a pedantic premise and conversation I agree that its great that there is a normalized inclusive context that allows the benign similarities between philosophers and music to be acknowledged, instead of their less benign differences such as the philosopher’s erotic performances