It is the simple reduction of two completely disproportionate responses to the phrase “both sides do it”.
The same logic keeps being applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both sides are fighting, they say, so both sides share equal responsibility for the destruction and for making peace.
I believe you when you say it isn’t your intent to do so, but in that case you are doing so obliviously. You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
Both siding requires the intent to equate the two to make one side seem less bad. I’m not doing that, I’m just recognizing the fact both sides are, objectively, doing it. You are reading into that, thinking I’m equating things. And that’s just not true.
You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
Are you claiming I’m both-siding because someone might read into it something that was never there? Amazing. This is like calling something totally innocent “dogswhistling” because you misunderstood the meaning. The intent is like the thing, without it it’s just not both-siding or dogwhistling.
Never thought I’d see someone pronouncing the death of the author about Lemmy comments lol.
If you think a bit harder about your reference you might remember that Barthes’ essay argues against relying on the intent of the original author. This isn’t the coup de grace you think it is.
And again, this has nothing to do with you. I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements. I am pointing out the demonstrable fact that your argument not only can be misinterpreted, but that it is more likely to be interpreted as drawing equivalence, given how that same position has been commonly used.
I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements.
It’s just that both-siding requires intent. You wouldn’t be both-sideing without it, it would just be a statement mentioning both sides.
I’m sorry but this has gone to a stupid degree. You misunderstood what I said as both-siding, I explained multiple times it wasn’t that, honestly time to give this a rest.
I pointed out that your argument was so reductive as to amount to both-siding. I’m glad it wasn’t your intent, but it’s a shame that you don’t see the problem with that regardless.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You have no idea who that person is, what correlation their posting has to their political position, or in fact whether they exist at all. And you’re drawing equivalence between that post and a recorded statement by the president.
I’m sure it’s just a fake account someone crafted for years to mislead me into thinking someone on the Democratic side might be dubious about the elections results.
What do you think “both siding” entails?
It is the simple reduction of two completely disproportionate responses to the phrase “both sides do it”.
The same logic keeps being applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both sides are fighting, they say, so both sides share equal responsibility for the destruction and for making peace.
I believe you when you say it isn’t your intent to do so, but in that case you are doing so obliviously. You don’t even know who the commenter is, so it’s pure assumption on your part that they’re even left wing to begin with.
Both siding requires the intent to equate the two to make one side seem less bad. I’m not doing that, I’m just recognizing the fact both sides are, objectively, doing it. You are reading into that, thinking I’m equating things. And that’s just not true.
If you mean @barry_aptt then I’m happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.
In that case you are naively both-siding this issue.
To help clarify: if somebody was to read your first comment, are they likely to infer that the two sides are equivalent?
Are you claiming I’m both-siding because someone might read into it something that was never there? Amazing. This is like calling something totally innocent “dogswhistling” because you misunderstood the meaning. The intent is like the thing, without it it’s just not both-siding or dogwhistling.
Never thought I’d see someone pronouncing the death of the author about Lemmy comments lol.
If you think a bit harder about your reference you might remember that Barthes’ essay argues against relying on the intent of the original author. This isn’t the coup de grace you think it is.
And again, this has nothing to do with you. I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements. I am pointing out the demonstrable fact that your argument not only can be misinterpreted, but that it is more likely to be interpreted as drawing equivalence, given how that same position has been commonly used.
I just thought it was funny.
It’s just that both-siding requires intent. You wouldn’t be both-sideing without it, it would just be a statement mentioning both sides.
I’m sorry but this has gone to a stupid degree. You misunderstood what I said as both-siding, I explained multiple times it wasn’t that, honestly time to give this a rest.
I pointed out that your argument was so reductive as to amount to both-siding. I’m glad it wasn’t your intent, but it’s a shame that you don’t see the problem with that regardless.
Should’ve been the end of it, really.
You really can’t address the argument I made, can you?
Your comment was so reductive as to be indistinguishable from bad faith equivalency. The claim that you didn’t mean to speaks only to your naivety.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You have no idea who that person is, what correlation their posting has to their political position, or in fact whether they exist at all. And you’re drawing equivalence between that post and a recorded statement by the president.
>Account constantly posts anti-Trump, anti-Republican, pro-Democratic party messages
>“You have no idea what correlation their posting has to their political position”
Right right.
If I said both cats and dogs animals, would you get upset over me drawing equivalence between cats and dogs? Give me a break.
You can’t just ignore parts of the argument to which you have no answer.
You don’t know who that person is or whether they even exist. It is beyond spurious to assign their statements to any other entity.
I’m sure it’s just a fake account someone crafted for years to mislead me into thinking someone on the Democratic side might be dubious about the elections results.
There are plenty of fake accounts in existence.
You don’t know either way, which makes your attribution entirely fallacious.
You’ve got nothing, sorry.