I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
You’ve just proven my point for me. You’re arguing pedantry in favor of billionaires, literally playing devil’s advocate.
I’m not arguing in favor of billionaires. Nowhere in this entire thread, nowhere in this entire site, nowhere I have interacted with anyone over the past 18 months or so, have I suggested that terrorizing president musk is the wrong thing to do.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on…
In the very strict sense, yes - violence can be committed upon things. The definition doesn’t specify ownership, simply people and things. I’m sorry, I should not have been hostile in any way. I have an edge to me when I’m speaking to anyone that I suspect is being disingenuous.
That being said, I still don’t think you understand that you may not say it - but the way you tried to deliver your message really convinced me that your subtext was humanizing billionaires that are actively dehumanizing millions of people. That is something I will not accept, in any capacity. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately this is a lot more complicated than a spade, and telling people they’re committing harm to billionaires and expecting them to give a shit is a really hot take.
It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
Yeah, I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil’s advocate.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
You’ve just proven my point for me. You’re arguing pedantry in favor of billionaires, literally playing devil’s advocate.
Sincerely, fuck off.
I’m not arguing in favor of billionaires. Nowhere in this entire thread, nowhere in this entire site, nowhere I have interacted with anyone over the past 18 months or so, have I suggested that terrorizing president musk is the wrong thing to do.
I just think we should call a spade a spade.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on…
In the very strict sense, yes - violence can be committed upon things. The definition doesn’t specify ownership, simply people and things. I’m sorry, I should not have been hostile in any way. I have an edge to me when I’m speaking to anyone that I suspect is being disingenuous.
That being said, I still don’t think you understand that you may not say it - but the way you tried to deliver your message really convinced me that your subtext was humanizing billionaires that are actively dehumanizing millions of people. That is something I will not accept, in any capacity. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately this is a lot more complicated than a spade, and telling people they’re committing harm to billionaires and expecting them to give a shit is a really hot take.
Edit: I conflated two separate conversations.
It’s a touchy subject, and I am not great at the human part of conversation. No offence taken.