3 ms·
if I'm understanding correctly, the general thrust of your position (between the unnecessary ad-hominem fluff such as "you keep trying to do back flips", and ab
by adamrezich 3y ago
if I'm understanding correctly, the general thrust of your position (between the unnecessary ad-hominem fluff such as "you keep trying to do back flips", and abject non sequiturs like "sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all" (thanks?)) is:
- yes, "hate" (and "violence") have been recently redefined
- but, most everyone agrees with the new redefinitions
- therefore, my inability to logically integrate said new redefinitions into my worldview makes me an outlier
- therefore, it is not unexpected that the linked paper does not elaborate on its definitions of the terms "hate" and "hate group", as, again, nearly everyone—excepting outliers like myself—is fully on board with the redefinitions of these terms, having already fully integrated them into their worldview
is this an accurate summary?
- freejazz 3y agoNo, my original point stands. Rather than taking the article at its word, or those organizations, you repeatedly read into it a third party's beliefs (the people you mention about burning the flag) and now you are saying that I'm saying everyone agrees with them (the people that you made up?) I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Where did I say anything like that? My point is I don't care that you found some randos that disagree about what violence or hate is, that doesn't actually amount to a crisis in the definitions of these words. If anyone, it's you insisting that there is such widespread disagreement on the meaning of hate and violence, and that such a disagreement is untenable. But I don't see that to be the case at all, and if you had responded in good faith, and didn't impart a third party's beliefs into the article, then we'd have never gotten to this point in conversation. There are people that think the world is flat, there might be even more of them than the flag burners you talk about, nevertheless we recognize that the world isn't flat.
- adamrezich 3y agoit would be very useful to know whether or not you believe "hate" and "violence" have been recently redefined/had their definitions expanded, because this is the lynchpin of my entire argument, and you kind of keep dodging it, which allows you to now frame my assertion that these definitions have changed as being something that only a small subset of the population buys into. continuing to dodge this is either naïve or disingenuous—because it means that you're either claiming or feigning (respectively) ignorance about this topic, which is central to the claims made by the study, in the context in which it is being made.
- freejazz 3y agoI just said twice that the words have not been redefined and here you are asking again, pretending like you are a reasonable person engaged in good faith discussion. I have repeatedly rejected your assertion that the words are redefined and I have repeatedly pushed back against your evidence ("some people disagree with me!") that leads you to think the words have been redefined. I have specifically said that we can easily refer to the dictionary instead of the strawman you are insisting on, because you found some people with unreasonable beliefs. It's as if you have not engaged with my posts at all.
- adamrezich 3y agoit seems we're talking past each other, so there's not much point in continuing this discussion
- freejazz 3y ago[flagged]
- adamrezich 3y agois it really so hard to refrain from ad hominems and insults?
- freejazz 3y agoYawn. Spare me the sanctimony and either actually respond to my posts, or get lost.
- Cupertino95014 3y agoWow. You really do attack everyone personally, don't you?