4 ms·

I don't take their comment as dishonest at all. I take their claim at face value, as you should. It isn't fair to immediately discredit someone when they expres

I don't take their comment as dishonest at all. I take their claim at face value, as you should. It isn't fair to immediately discredit someone when they express a fear of your words becoming ever more violent. I think you should look inward and ask yourself how you can do better with your discourse in the future.

Eisenstein 4y ago
Ah yes, you make complete sense. Forgive me for not realizing that when wading into a comment thread on a submission that is baiting the anti-woke crew to vent that I would be dealing with this. Should have known better.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  I didn't design these weapons against critical thinking, I just use them against the people who advocate for them so that we're all on the same level. Your violent words scare me and I think you should self censor your aggression so that others can feel safe. don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    You aren't using anything against anyone. It is completely transparent what you are doing and the only thing it is effective at is making you look silly. The fact that you think that I am pro-naughty-word-censoring because I brought up a simple comparison and posed a simple question makes your adherence to critical-thinking look hollow since you seem to eschew it. I am happy to be proved wrong by having a thoughtful discussion if you would like, instead of carrying on in the manner we have.
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      the reason it looks silly is because you're looking in a mirror that's showing a different face, but presenting the same opinions back at you. Of course it looks silly. Of course it looks like lack of critical thinking. Its both of those things - it's modeled after people who think talking is violence if they don't like the speech - it uses the same 'logic' and framework. It will equate this silly list of words to assault and battery uncritically, and can do so with any opinion to shut down discourse. It's not a logical framework, its an ideological weapon used to shutdown competing ideas with nonsense like these blacklists. The question is if have the capacity to recognize that about your own reasoning when you get it lobbed back at you, or if you will simply declare it as the specious noise making of the 'anti woke crew' because it invalidates your position without any chance at coming to an agreement, because it immediately classifies any contradictory thinking as violent and evil without having to make a logical argument. Weird how that works.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        If you are admitting to purposefully shutting down the ability to have a reasonable conversation then I can't see what you your end-game is here. Do you plan to act unreasonable, call people 'emotional' and say that they are doing things they are not (please point out how I have used any of these tactics or 'ideological weapons') until it is just you, the extremist 'woke' bureaucrats, and other people who refuse to engage in reasonable discourse, having alienated anyone who is not willing to take a blunt ideological position and sit on it with fingers in ears? At that point what then is the plan?
        LegitShady 4y ago
        I'm no more shutting down the conversation than someone equating offensive words to uttering threats. By declaring words violence you make sure there can be no conversation, I'm just making sure it's true about everyone's words instead of just what you're comfortable with. If you think that's unreasonable maybe judge you own behaviour - your words can be violence and every time you open your mouth to declare other people' words violence, you open the door for it to happen to you. so I did it, and you had nothing to say except to declare it bad faith, which I agree with, except I think your argument about assault is also in bad faith, and treat you the same. You talk about plans like I control you or other people. I don't. I can only show you a mirror of yourself and hope you snap yourself out of the anti discourse patterns you exhibit but dislike in others. The plan is only to treat people who decry words as violence the same way they treat others and hope they learn the error of their way by having to contend with their own ideological weapons turned against them. If words are violence why does anyone need to listen to anyone? I didn't kill discussion - your opinion decries discussion as violence. How can we have reasonable conversation in a framework where one side decries the other side's words as violence? It's not possible. It's not a framework for conversation, its just a tool to shut up people who you disagree with.

Eisenstein 4y ago

Ah yes, you make complete sense. Forgive me for not realizing that when wading into a comment thread on a submission that is baiting the anti-woke crew to vent that I would be dealing with this. Should have known better.

LegitShady 4y ago
I didn't design these weapons against critical thinking, I just use them against the people who advocate for them so that we're all on the same level. Your violent words scare me and I think you should self censor your aggression so that others can feel safe. don't hate the player, we're all going to play with the same rules. If you or those DIE people with nothing to do get to declare words violence and subject other people to censorship based on your emotions, other people should be able to do it to you.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  You aren't using anything against anyone. It is completely transparent what you are doing and the only thing it is effective at is making you look silly. The fact that you think that I am pro-naughty-word-censoring because I brought up a simple comparison and posed a simple question makes your adherence to critical-thinking look hollow since you seem to eschew it. I am happy to be proved wrong by having a thoughtful discussion if you would like, instead of carrying on in the manner we have.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    the reason it looks silly is because you're looking in a mirror that's showing a different face, but presenting the same opinions back at you. Of course it looks silly. Of course it looks like lack of critical thinking. Its both of those things - it's modeled after people who think talking is violence if they don't like the speech - it uses the same 'logic' and framework. It will equate this silly list of words to assault and battery uncritically, and can do so with any opinion to shut down discourse. It's not a logical framework, its an ideological weapon used to shutdown competing ideas with nonsense like these blacklists. The question is if have the capacity to recognize that about your own reasoning when you get it lobbed back at you, or if you will simply declare it as the specious noise making of the 'anti woke crew' because it invalidates your position without any chance at coming to an agreement, because it immediately classifies any contradictory thinking as violent and evil without having to make a logical argument. Weird how that works.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      If you are admitting to purposefully shutting down the ability to have a reasonable conversation then I can't see what you your end-game is here. Do you plan to act unreasonable, call people 'emotional' and say that they are doing things they are not (please point out how I have used any of these tactics or 'ideological weapons') until it is just you, the extremist 'woke' bureaucrats, and other people who refuse to engage in reasonable discourse, having alienated anyone who is not willing to take a blunt ideological position and sit on it with fingers in ears? At that point what then is the plan?
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        I'm no more shutting down the conversation than someone equating offensive words to uttering threats. By declaring words violence you make sure there can be no conversation, I'm just making sure it's true about everyone's words instead of just what you're comfortable with. If you think that's unreasonable maybe judge you own behaviour - your words can be violence and every time you open your mouth to declare other people' words violence, you open the door for it to happen to you. so I did it, and you had nothing to say except to declare it bad faith, which I agree with, except I think your argument about assault is also in bad faith, and treat you the same. You talk about plans like I control you or other people. I don't. I can only show you a mirror of yourself and hope you snap yourself out of the anti discourse patterns you exhibit but dislike in others. The plan is only to treat people who decry words as violence the same way they treat others and hope they learn the error of their way by having to contend with their own ideological weapons turned against them. If words are violence why does anyone need to listen to anyone? I didn't kill discussion - your opinion decries discussion as violence. How can we have reasonable conversation in a framework where one side decries the other side's words as violence? It's not possible. It's not a framework for conversation, its just a tool to shut up people who you disagree with.