4 ms·

Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. It's disrespectful. The argument you're trying to formulat

Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. It's disrespectful. The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession. Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s 2:26 timestamp listen to the end to understand the point fully. per the link about naming, I'm not surprised you misunderstood what Feynman was saying, but that's not my problem.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 4y ago
> Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. You’re willing to spend the time to write 12 replies, but you’re too busy to define the terms you use? Defining terms (especially when they are highly politically charged) allows everyone to get on the same page. Playing games with your terminology to the point you admit they are tautological is the definition of disingenuous discourse.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  What you quoted was me explaining why I won't spend and hour on a novel-length response. If you're going to try and bring me to task, atleast be accurate.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    No one was asking you for a novel-length response. Took me 2 minutes to read lol. If you don’t want to read something, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to respond to someone who has taken the time to respond to you, don’t. But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. You want to reply, and you have plenty of time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t reply. If you had better things to do, you’d be doing them. Just define the terms you use; that you don’t allows you to slip around the debate. You’ve spent far more time dodging questions and rationalizing your dodges than it would have taken to just define the terms you use. Very hard for you to explain how someone was “cancelled” when they are standing on a soapbox and their message is getting out to a huge audience. Really cuts against your argument, so it’s not a surprise you want to hand-wave your way through that (“it’s tautological!”).
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      What I said: > Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. What you think I said > But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. I'll buy 'Shit that makes no sense' for 500 Alex. Lets paraphrase your comment here. "How can you claim someone tried to prevent him from speaking when they failed due to the Streisand Effect!". ummmmmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect > Attempts to hide, remove, or censor information often have the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information via the Internet. Oh, and we did define it. We defined it as "that which happened to Dorian Abbot". You gotta keep up.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        > I'll buy 'Shit that makes no sense' for 500 Alex. What you’re saying here still doesn’t make sense because you obviously do have the time to read a few paragraphs of text (not a novel), or else you wouldn’t be here still responding in a day-old thread. Instead, of making up a lie that you don’t have time, just admit you don’t want to engage with the arguments made whatsoever. > We defined it as "that which happened to Dorian Abbot". And is that something you made up to win an internet argument, or something that you could support through some external citation? Usually definitions aren’t personal feelings. Regardless, if I am to take your personal definition of “canceling” at face value, it doesn’t seem to prove your original point in bringing up the term. As far as I can tell, you’re just retreating to this position because it’s the only way to keep your argument consistent. If you were to attempt an actual definition of “cancel”, you’d be forced to admit that nothing really bad comes of it (unless you can bring up more examples, but you seem to only cite the one).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ModernMech 4y ago

> Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. You’re willing to spend the time to write 12 replies, but you’re too busy to define the terms you use? Defining terms (especially when they are highly politically charged) allows everyone to get on the same page. Playing games with your terminology to the point you admit they are tautological is the definition of disingenuous discourse.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
What you quoted was me explaining why I won't spend and hour on a novel-length response. If you're going to try and bring me to task, atleast be accurate.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  No one was asking you for a novel-length response. Took me 2 minutes to read lol. If you don’t want to read something, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to respond to someone who has taken the time to respond to you, don’t. But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. You want to reply, and you have plenty of time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t reply. If you had better things to do, you’d be doing them. Just define the terms you use; that you don’t allows you to slip around the debate. You’ve spent far more time dodging questions and rationalizing your dodges than it would have taken to just define the terms you use. Very hard for you to explain how someone was “cancelled” when they are standing on a soapbox and their message is getting out to a huge audience. Really cuts against your argument, so it’s not a surprise you want to hand-wave your way through that (“it’s tautological!”).
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    What I said: > Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. What you think I said > But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. I'll buy 'Shit that makes no sense' for 500 Alex. Lets paraphrase your comment here. "How can you claim someone tried to prevent him from speaking when they failed due to the Streisand Effect!". ummmmmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect > Attempts to hide, remove, or censor information often have the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information via the Internet. Oh, and we did define it. We defined it as "that which happened to Dorian Abbot". You gotta keep up.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > I'll buy 'Shit that makes no sense' for 500 Alex. What you’re saying here still doesn’t make sense because you obviously do have the time to read a few paragraphs of text (not a novel), or else you wouldn’t be here still responding in a day-old thread. Instead, of making up a lie that you don’t have time, just admit you don’t want to engage with the arguments made whatsoever. > We defined it as "that which happened to Dorian Abbot". And is that something you made up to win an internet argument, or something that you could support through some external citation? Usually definitions aren’t personal feelings. Regardless, if I am to take your personal definition of “canceling” at face value, it doesn’t seem to prove your original point in bringing up the term. As far as I can tell, you’re just retreating to this position because it’s the only way to keep your argument consistent. If you were to attempt an actual definition of “cancel”, you’d be forced to admit that nothing really bad comes of it (unless you can bring up more examples, but you seem to only cite the one).