4 ms·

It's infinitely more dangerous to reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same wa

It's infinitely more dangerous to reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". If someone bad mouths a cesspit by mixing up which stalking cases they're involved with, when said place was literally founded and named around stalking someone... I reserve the right to say that's an acceptable mistake of absolutely no consequence to a conversation about censorship. I also reserve the right to do say so without unilaterally declaring that it's ok to make up facts about anyone in existence the moment said they're deemed to have done something wrong. That's the kind of nuance in thinking we aim to instill in children from a very young age.

arp242 3y ago
> reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". I never said any such thing or made any such argument. The disagreement is about which events have occurred at all, and it's not about "mixing up" minor details.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  I don't care if they got things wrong on which exact people got stalked. You twisted that into: > But this is a very dangerous argument you're making: "who cares if people are making up complete nonsense about them, they're bad anyway?!" So either that's the argument that you're making... or you genuinely believe that it's dangerous to say a place is a cesspit "just" because they stalked a lot of people (and drove a brilliant person to suicide, then celebrated) Also, for posterity: - If you're not a stalker and someone says you stalked someone: that's making things up. - If you're named after the first guy you stalked, and you've stalked so often there are academic papers written on it, if people mis-attribute a stalking to you: that's a mix-up.
lelanthran 3y ago
> I reserve the right to say that's an acceptable mistake of absolutely no consequence to a conversation about censorship. Acceptable censorship is of no consequence to a conversation about censorship?
- TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
  Mixing up which person the site was stalking has no relevant effect on the conversation at hand.

arp242 3y ago

> reduce the world to the kind of logic that underlies implying "if you feel a way about one case of X you must feel the same way about all cases of X ever in every context". I never said any such thing or made any such argument. The disagreement is about which events have occurred at all, and it's not about "mixing up" minor details.

BoorishBears 3y ago
I don't care if they got things wrong on which exact people got stalked. You twisted that into: > But this is a very dangerous argument you're making: "who cares if people are making up complete nonsense about them, they're bad anyway?!" So either that's the argument that you're making... or you genuinely believe that it's dangerous to say a place is a cesspit "just" because they stalked a lot of people (and drove a brilliant person to suicide, then celebrated) Also, for posterity: - If you're not a stalker and someone says you stalked someone: that's making things up. - If you're named after the first guy you stalked, and you've stalked so often there are academic papers written on it, if people mis-attribute a stalking to you: that's a mix-up.

lelanthran 3y ago

> I reserve the right to say that's an acceptable mistake of absolutely no consequence to a conversation about censorship. Acceptable censorship is of no consequence to a conversation about censorship?

TRiG_Ireland 3y ago
Mixing up which person the site was stalking has no relevant effect on the conversation at hand.