3 ms·
> Or, we could continue down our current path of Orwellian new-speak, where a new group of religious extremists deem ever more language as blasphemous and every
by ineptech 4y ago
> Or, we could continue down our current path of Orwellian new-speak, where a new group of religious extremists deem ever more language as blasphemous and everyone joins the witch-burners for fear of being labelled a witch themselves.
We don't do that here. If a belief or position or ideology is bad, you should be able to skewer the actual position rather than an exaggerated strawman of it.
- nvahalik 4y agoWho is exaggerating?
- ineptech 4y agoDo you think the people OP was complaining about would say, "Yes, that's a fair summary of what we think"? This is how you turn a useful discussion into a pointless shouting match - you caricature and exaggerate your outgroup's position. "You're a bunch of religious extremists!" "Well you just want to be biased and get away with it!" "Stop trying to be thought police!" "Stop being so racist!"
- concordDance 4y agoDo you think prohibitions on "whitelist" etc are a strawman?
- ineptech 4y agoI quoted the part I was referring to. I think it was a reasonable comment until OP had to throw on some kerosene at the end there - that's the thing we (I hope?) don't do here.
- concordDance 4y agoOh, yeah. While each individual bit is mostly true ("new-speak", a group that shares many religiosity traits deeming more and more parts of language bad and people joining the witch hunters out of fear of being labelled witches (I'm guilty of this)) the extra adjectives and hyperbole are harmful to discourse. Have an upvote.