5 ms·

> No it's not, it's literally not relevant. You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not. In other wes

> No it's not, it's literally not relevant. You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not. In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I'm not taking one side or the other, personally, but this is an opinion question settled by the voters.

aydyn 4y ago
> In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I'm not GP.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - aydyn 4y ago
    That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Apologies, I didn't mean it negatively or anything, just for folks following along.
kelnos 4y ago
That's not what OP was arguing, though. OP appeared to be suggesting it was ok to arrest someone on flimsy grounds, because they were participating in a meme promoted by an organization with harmful ideology. I'm not sure what other motive we can ascribe to that post, really.
- epgui 4y ago
  A reasonably charitable interpretation of OP's comment suggests they were not suggesting that at all.
  - aydyn 4y ago
    Nonsense. That is what they were saying.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I don't see that at all, and invoking "charitable interpretation" is a bit disingenuous. Why bring up the context if not to suggest that this arrest was justified because of the person's ideology?
    - epgui 4y ago
      I don't think it's ever disingenuous to invoke charitable interpretation when an uncharitable interpretation is made. The comment was giving context around why the guy's actions might be considered morally reprehensible (or more simply, "wrong"), and was not in any way suggesting that that made an arrest justified. In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made. If the reader makes that leap (here despite the comment author's warning), then that's on the reader, and it's exactly why charitable interpretation is important. Without charitable interpretation, people put words in each others' mouths, talk past each other, or don't hear each other. It's essential to civil discourse in general: most of what most people write or say will be less than perfect, so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. So no, it's not disingenuous at all to bring this up. (But isn't doing this exhausting? My goodness is it ever! Yes.) Note, crucially, that a "charitable interpretation" is not necessarily the "most likely interpretation" or "the interpretation you believe is the most accurate". It is the interpretation that puts the other person in the most favourable light, while remaining mostly (yes, this often requires flexibility and some approximation) logically consistent with what was actually said or written. In this particular case, a charitable interpretation can be made by simply not putting words in the author's mouth: his text is entirely consistent with the charitable interpretation.

aydyn 4y ago

> In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.

arcticbull 4y ago
I'm not GP.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aydyn 4y ago
  That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Apologies, I didn't mean it negatively or anything, just for folks following along.

kelnos 4y ago

That's not what OP was arguing, though. OP appeared to be suggesting it was ok to arrest someone on flimsy grounds, because they were participating in a meme promoted by an organization with harmful ideology. I'm not sure what other motive we can ascribe to that post, really.

epgui 4y ago
A reasonably charitable interpretation of OP's comment suggests they were not suggesting that at all.
- aydyn 4y ago
  Nonsense. That is what they were saying.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I don't see that at all, and invoking "charitable interpretation" is a bit disingenuous. Why bring up the context if not to suggest that this arrest was justified because of the person's ideology?
  - epgui 4y ago
    I don't think it's ever disingenuous to invoke charitable interpretation when an uncharitable interpretation is made. The comment was giving context around why the guy's actions might be considered morally reprehensible (or more simply, "wrong"), and was not in any way suggesting that that made an arrest justified. In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made. If the reader makes that leap (here despite the comment author's warning), then that's on the reader, and it's exactly why charitable interpretation is important. Without charitable interpretation, people put words in each others' mouths, talk past each other, or don't hear each other. It's essential to civil discourse in general: most of what most people write or say will be less than perfect, so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. So no, it's not disingenuous at all to bring this up. (But isn't doing this exhausting? My goodness is it ever! Yes.) Note, crucially, that a "charitable interpretation" is not necessarily the "most likely interpretation" or "the interpretation you believe is the most accurate". It is the interpretation that puts the other person in the most favourable light, while remaining mostly (yes, this often requires flexibility and some approximation) logically consistent with what was actually said or written. In this particular case, a charitable interpretation can be made by simply not putting words in the author's mouth: his text is entirely consistent with the charitable interpretation.