3 ms·
>> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint. > Are you re
by teakettle42 4y ago
>> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
> Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence?
No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement.
> Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
- sophacles 4y agoHow did I arrive at it? Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say. The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution: boycotts = violence = not spending money People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them. (becomes) People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them. (can simplify as) People are generally entitled a revenue stream.