Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
You PRETEND
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader? I haven’t “pretended” a single thing this conversation. I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide. I’m not aware of any other possible interpretation of what you said.
Why should I if that was not the topic?
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust” and then explain whatever other interpretation supposedly exists for what you said, instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic. Do I need to link it again?
Yes, genocide is bad, yada yada yada, but there’s a time and place for everything, and using genocide for manipulating the public discourse as the other commenter was doing to rail against centrists and Democrats was a cheap shot and abusive. You can see what they were doing in their comment history. I referenced this earlier, and you said, “where can I find this??”
Ok? That’s the fucking topic. Not the genocide itself. Everything around the topic of genocide was the topic. Got it now?
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader?
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand, and that pretending not to understand is the next most logical conclusion, because what I’m saying is quite straightforward if you get what meta is.
I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust”
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers. You ask directly what they mean rather than play stupid mind games that get people to second-guess your intentions.
instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”. We had a beautiful thing going on over there. This was a one-off comment because I found it funny. Oh, but now it’s my fault. lol…
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic
And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The fact is that genocide is a moral abomination and people are perfectly right to “fixate” on it, because that’s what you do when something abominable is happening in front of you. If I see somebody pull out a gun and start shooting people, and start complaining that everybody is “hyper-fixated” on the shooter and that they shouldn’t be, then I am making a statement about the shooting and how significant it is. This isn’t hard to understand.
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand,
Right, you’re “giving me the benefit of the doubt” by saying that I’m lying.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide. Now, I think you have a completely incoherent and self-contradictory position.
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers.
Brother, it was not a “trap.” I even did you the courtesy of explaining the implications of both of your possible responses. What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical. I did not realize that you don’t understand how hypotheticals worked, or that a hypothetical apparently killed your family or something to the point that you would take this much offense over it. Again, just because a hypothetical makes your position look bad, that is not sufficient reason to reject it. That’s just like, how arguments work, on a very fundamental level.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”.
And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The part that you’re missing is “in other people’s minds when they make a judgment” because the commenter was making broad generalizations about centrists. Something you left out of your hypothetical by removing the context. Yes, genocide is a huge deal in and of itself, but it’s not an enormous weight in people’s minds generally speaking. The more thoughtful ones probably do, but it’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind type of deal. It usually happens on the other side of the world for Americans.
Do you see how I’m not saying that we should downplay genocide, but rather the commenter needs to take down a peg the weight they give it to arrive at their conclusion? Do you see how I’m staying within context when you stop your shrieking about it?
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide.
And I just explained how I was not, and that I DID jump through the hoop, and I can prove that I did. Don’t make shit up.
Brother, it was not a “trap.”
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical
Absolutely not. You divorced what I was saying from the context and turned it into absolutes that I was not claiming. Which, incidentally, is the same reason why you think I hold a contradictory position, because you refuse to understand what was said and would rather shriek at me about what YOU THOUGHT I said.
And, honestly, I’m quite fed up with you. You either get what I said or you don’t. I won’t spoon-feed you again.
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
Once upon a time, Socrates had a discussion about the gods with someone named Euthyphro. Socrates asked, “Are the things the gods command good because the gods command them, or do the gods command things that just happen to be good? If you say it’s the first, then saying that the gods command good things is really just saying “the gods command what the gods command,” a meaningless tautology. But if you say the gods command things that we independently judge to be good, then there must be some other source of goodness, and in that case, why don’t we follow that directly, without needing the gods?”
Euthyphro responded “AHA! YOU’RE TRYING TO LURE ME INTO A TRAP!!! I CAUGHT YOU11!!! THAT QUESTION MAKES ME LOOK BAD EITHER WAY SO IT’S OBVIOUSLY BAD FAITH!!!” and Socrates said, “Aw, dang, you got me” and it never came up again.
Yes, that’s what I said, you were talking about genocide.
Why do you keep saying this? Are you a mind-reader? I haven’t “pretended” a single thing this conversation. I genuinely, 100% believe that you were minimizing genocide. I’m not aware of any other possible interpretation of what you said.
It seems like it would’ve been really fucking easy to say “No, that wouldn’t justify the Holocaust” and then explain whatever other interpretation supposedly exists for what you said, instead of playing this game where you refuse to answer and then answer like 20 comments later in a different thread.
Do you know what meta is? Did you know that you can describe the concept of a topic and aspects of said topic without necessarily going into it? Because I clearly was talking about the hyper-fixation people have on the genocide as a topic. Do I need to link it again?
Yes, genocide is bad, yada yada yada, but there’s a time and place for everything, and using genocide for manipulating the public discourse as the other commenter was doing to rail against centrists and Democrats was a cheap shot and abusive. You can see what they were doing in their comment history. I referenced this earlier, and you said, “where can I find this??”
Ok? That’s the fucking topic. Not the genocide itself. Everything around the topic of genocide was the topic. Got it now?
Because I refuse to believe you’re this dense. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to understand, and that pretending not to understand is the next most logical conclusion, because what I’m saying is quite straightforward if you get what meta is.
How?? I said the thing, I jumped through your hoop, I overexplained and keep overexplaining myself. Why is it so difficult to understand? Is it really that inconceivable?
No, you set up a trap. You don’t set up traps when you want straight answers. You ask directly what they mean rather than play stupid mind games that get people to second-guess your intentions.
YOU dragged the conversation to c/memes. YOU wanted to “expose me” over here, “in front of the class”. We had a beautiful thing going on over there. This was a one-off comment because I found it funny. Oh, but now it’s my fault. lol…
And that is, itself, a statement about genocide. Saying that people are “hyper-fixated” on genocide, and that they shouldn’t be, that they should “move the fuck on” and that “the world doesn’t revolve around genocide” is saying that genocide isn’t that big of a deal actually, that it’s just a matter of preference, like whether you like waffles or pancakes.
The fact is that genocide is a moral abomination and people are perfectly right to “fixate” on it, because that’s what you do when something abominable is happening in front of you. If I see somebody pull out a gun and start shooting people, and start complaining that everybody is “hyper-fixated” on the shooter and that they shouldn’t be, then I am making a statement about the shooting and how significant it is. This isn’t hard to understand.
Right, you’re “giving me the benefit of the doubt” by saying that I’m lying.
Now you did. I said that you were minimizing genocide. Now, I think you have a completely incoherent and self-contradictory position.
Brother, it was not a “trap.” I even did you the courtesy of explaining the implications of both of your possible responses. What kind of “trap-setter” explains their trap?
I asked you a very simple, staightforward, and perfectly fair hypothetical. I did not realize that you don’t understand how hypotheticals worked, or that a hypothetical apparently killed your family or something to the point that you would take this much offense over it. Again, just because a hypothetical makes your position look bad, that is not sufficient reason to reject it. That’s just like, how arguments work, on a very fundamental level.
Who do you even think you’re fooling?
The part that you’re missing is “in other people’s minds when they make a judgment” because the commenter was making broad generalizations about centrists. Something you left out of your hypothetical by removing the context. Yes, genocide is a huge deal in and of itself, but it’s not an enormous weight in people’s minds generally speaking. The more thoughtful ones probably do, but it’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind type of deal. It usually happens on the other side of the world for Americans.
Do you see how I’m not saying that we should downplay genocide, but rather the commenter needs to take down a peg the weight they give it to arrive at their conclusion? Do you see how I’m staying within context when you stop your shrieking about it?
And I just explained how I was not, and that I DID jump through the hoop, and I can prove that I did. Don’t make shit up.
Besides it being an obvious trap, you absolutely admitted it was a trap, and then you said that you were intending to incriminate me either way. Don’t play these fucking games.
You. It doesn’t magically stop being a trap in the same way that a puzzle doesn’t stop being a puzzle because the puzzle maker said that’s what it was. I even linked to the video explaining how those incriminating statements work. Don’t piss on my leg.
Absolutely not. You divorced what I was saying from the context and turned it into absolutes that I was not claiming. Which, incidentally, is the same reason why you think I hold a contradictory position, because you refuse to understand what was said and would rather shriek at me about what YOU THOUGHT I said.
And, honestly, I’m quite fed up with you. You either get what I said or you don’t. I won’t spoon-feed you again.
Once upon a time, Socrates had a discussion about the gods with someone named Euthyphro. Socrates asked, “Are the things the gods command good because the gods command them, or do the gods command things that just happen to be good? If you say it’s the first, then saying that the gods command good things is really just saying “the gods command what the gods command,” a meaningless tautology. But if you say the gods command things that we independently judge to be good, then there must be some other source of goodness, and in that case, why don’t we follow that directly, without needing the gods?”
Euthyphro responded “AHA! YOU’RE TRYING TO LURE ME INTO A TRAP!!! I CAUGHT YOU11!!! THAT QUESTION MAKES ME LOOK BAD EITHER WAY SO IT’S OBVIOUSLY BAD FAITH!!!” and Socrates said, “Aw, dang, you got me” and it never came up again.
And this is what matters to you? Good to know.
Yes, I do consider basic fucking logic pretty damn important.