you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I'm not sure if you meant to use "salient" here (as in you're using the word incorrectly), but I definitely wasn't trying make my writing that.

I'm also not sure about what else is said here either. Plenty of people behave immorally despite having role models; and I'd hardly say good people are in short supply despite how doomers insist the world is right now. I'd also caution against resorting to individualist explanations for this as well, and I was trying to discourage that by emphasizing the relationality between individuals and systems.

This is also by no means nothing even remotely new, but the specific form of normativity that people engage with this from did indeed emerge from modern European colonialism, and therefore Christianized notions of moral purity. But by, "nowadays" I reckon you're not positioning this as a centuries-long development.

And then, "holding us back," itself casts a normative construction of how things ought to be, which is exactly what I've cautioned against. I'd hardly imagine your understanding of a collective addresses decolonialism in a way that doesn't subordinate groups or values that are "holding us back," from some idealized, "proper" state that thing should be in by now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (2 children)

    I'm not sure if you meant to use "salient" here, but I definitely wasn't trying make my writing that.

    No, I meant 'saliency'. The sentence called for the noun form, not the adjective base.

    I just clearly failed to explain what it was that I found salient and it's not as self-evident in the light of your message as I hoped. Alas.

    I'm also not sure...state that thing should be in by now.

    I appreciate the reiteration, but you're still perpendicular parallel (Edit: Geometry is hard) to the point I was trying to make.

    Which does not contradict yours, but seeks to expose the individualist core from which the sentiments you are focusing on one abstraction layer above stem from.

    I was not focusing on individualist anything.

    And then, "holding us back," itself casts a normative...

    Oh. This is my dear friend, 'semantics' and its effects on perception, isn't it? That's what's going on here.

    I have neither time, nor will for this particularly loathsome recurring motif, as of the time of this writing.

    It does not matter if my point did not carry across, ultimately. Your message is still fine and if more people followed it, they'd arrive closer to what I was trying and failed to communicate anyways, so by all means, carry on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Wow, the ego on this guy. I was trying to be gracious with the first comment and really tried to read it with good intent, but I'm not going take this one seriously.

    For this who come across this and are confused as to why this person is incorrect (both in their point and how they're arguing it) feel free to ask, as there are common distortions found here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    Yes, ego. Absolutely no other possible interpretation. My deepest apologies for wasting your graciousness, I am so undeserving of it, and you illustrate your point oh so well here...

    [For those who come across this and are confused about this exchange: Do take the other commenter's original message to heart, and see the rest of his interactions for a demonstration of 'intent' vs 'action' for a glimpse of mine.]

  • source
  • parent