176
"I am not complicit" (thelemmy.club)
submitted 22 hours ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Context

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 20 hours ago (10 children)

This is one of the most clear cut cases of there being only one side that deserves any support, consideration or sympathy of any kind.

That's entirely what I meant. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but it was my intention to point exactly that very thing out.

So to paraphrase, my whole post was me trying to say "If you believe it's necessary to mention both sides at a time like this, fuck you".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 20 hours ago* (9 children)

    this absolute insistence that mentioning "both sides" makes you some kind of enlightened centrist that is somehow above the issue being discussed, it really pisses me off.

    So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 20 hours ago (8 children)

    When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I'll try to rephrase it so that it's not confusing.

    People who insist on mentioning "both sides", like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.

    If this makes more sense, I'll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago* (6 children)

    The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, "insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist" implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn't the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that "mentioning both sides makes you some kind of" implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

    I think I understand where the structural issue was. I've edited the original post to reflect that. Thanks for sticking around to help me iron it out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

    I think actually the issue here might be that you didn't realize that in this space, calling someone an "enlightened centrist" is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    But I do realise that. I was trying to say that people who say "both sides" are motherfuckers. Was even that unclear? If so, this really goes down as a massive failpost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago

    You said that insisting saying "both sides" makes you an enlightened centrist pisses you off. Johnny read that as saying it pisses you off that people assume anyone who says "both sides" is a motherfucker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent