3 ms·

> Do you realize the article is full of "fuck" repeated over and over? So what? Does it make it ok to pollute the comment section, which is separate from the a

> Do you realize the article is full of "fuck" repeated over and over? So what? Does it make it ok to pollute the comment section, which is separate from the article, with hostile comments? Let's get an overblown example: does it make it ok to be racist and antisemitic if you are in a group discussing Mein Kampf? I don't think so. > Is it so big of an issue, getting an "important" (to use your words) point ignoring the irrelevant parts? It would be if the irrelevant part don't poison the rest of the discourse. I guess there are many intelligent racists out there. We don't need them and I don't care what they have to say. > The comment was really directed at the author of the article (not even whoever posted it) not sure why you're taking that as if it was directed to you, and on a personal level. I am not. That last part is using a figure of speech called sarcasm. Could I have written my comment without it? Sure, but it was designed to redirect the kind of hostility towards the OP so that it becomes clear that it's not acceptable.

znpy 2y ago
> So what? Does it make it ok to pollute the comment section, which is separate from the article, with hostile comments? Irrelevant. Imagine applying the same logic: the whole article is dismissed becuse of the word "fuck" being sprinkled around because "language matters". > Let's get an overblown example: does it make it ok to be racist and antisemitic if you are in a group discussing Mein Kampf? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum > It would be if the irrelevant part don't poison the rest of the discourse. I guess there are many intelligent racists out there. We don't need them and I don't care what they have to say. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." What can I say, this tells a lot about you. Discussing with people you strongly disagree with is a necessary and unavoidable step to change other people's mind. If you're not willing to go closer to people you disagree with and try and educate about a more open point of view (a not racist point of view, to go along with your example) then you'll never make any change in the world: it really means you're okay with racism as it is. At this point i'm really done arguing with you (I did my part). Farewell, best of luck.

znpy 2y ago

> So what? Does it make it ok to pollute the comment section, which is separate from the article, with hostile comments? Irrelevant. Imagine applying the same logic: the whole article is dismissed becuse of the word "fuck" being sprinkled around because "language matters". > Let's get an overblown example: does it make it ok to be racist and antisemitic if you are in a group discussing Mein Kampf? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum > It would be if the irrelevant part don't poison the rest of the discourse. I guess there are many intelligent racists out there. We don't need them and I don't care what they have to say. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." What can I say, this tells a lot about you. Discussing with people you strongly disagree with is a necessary and unavoidable step to change other people's mind. If you're not willing to go closer to people you disagree with and try and educate about a more open point of view (a not racist point of view, to go along with your example) then you'll never make any change in the world: it really means you're okay with racism as it is. At this point i'm really done arguing with you (I did my part). Farewell, best of luck.