5 ms·

The problem with that type of conversational exaggeration is that it leaves no more room to describe actual genocidal people and groups. How would you describe

by veidr 3y ago

The problem with that type of conversational exaggeration is that it leaves no more room to describe actual genocidal people and groups. How would you describe those, then? "'A person who really actually literally doesn't want me to exist'?" I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity."

tech_ken 3y ago
That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".
- soundnote 3y ago
  The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
    - soundnote 3y ago
      With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
soundnote 3y ago
I have acquaintances who spout stuff like "all Christians should be killed" (would mean at least a dozen of my friends getting killed :) ) and openly go like "guys, have you thought that if we just started killing rich people, the world would become a better place and we wouldn't even have to kill all that many people". One person who was both trans and a furry complained about how people considered their existence a political matter and how that was sad. Two weeks later and they were (completely unsurprisingly) wishing for a communist revolution. Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter. Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.
lelanthran 3y ago
> I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity." Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: What evidence do you have that Eich hates you? He made one political contribution and now that's hate? Gosh we are really devaluing the word "hate"
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"? Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time. Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?

by veidr 3y ago

tech_ken 3y ago

That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".

soundnote 3y ago
The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
  - soundnote 3y ago
    With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?

soundnote 3y ago

I have acquaintances who spout stuff like "all Christians should be killed" (would mean at least a dozen of my friends getting killed :) ) and openly go like "guys, have you thought that if we just started killing rich people, the world would become a better place and we wouldn't even have to kill all that many people". One person who was both trans and a furry complained about how people considered their existence a political matter and how that was sad. Two weeks later and they were (completely unsurprisingly) wishing for a communist revolution. Which, as we all know, are peaceful affairs where people's freaking lives definitely aren't a political matter. Somehow the mods of the place are ok with that but if I dissented from their politics I'd be considered less than human pretty much then and there.

lelanthran 3y ago

> I dislike Eich for the exact same reasons. But I would say something more like "I don't hate Brave, just can't use a product by someone that thinks people should be deprived of fundamental human rights just because of their sexuality or gender identity." Too much of a mouthful. It's enough to say "I can't use a product built by people who hate me". Just as true, just as impactful...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mrguyorama 3y ago
Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: What evidence do you have that Eich hates you? He made one political contribution and now that's hate? Gosh we are really devaluing the word "hate"
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Since you're all over this thread playing word games, some of your own medicine: Are you seriously disputing that it is rational to hold the view "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal" and "People Objecting to Gay Marriage Are Not Calling For The Cessation Of Existence Of Gays"? Because it sure looks, to the average reader, that you are incapable of understanding that many people can hold two non-conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time. Aren't you able to hold two thoughts at the same time without having a neural meltdown? Why do you think others can't?