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.
The whole discussion has been you attacking a position I never had and now venting how I caused you to misunderstand. I’m sorry you’re upset but this discussion serves no purpose anymore.
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.
The whole discussion has been you attacking a position I never had and now venting how I caused you to misunderstand. I’m sorry you’re upset but this discussion serves no purpose anymore.
You’ve failed at addressing my argument directly, failed at building a straw man, so I guess it makes sense you’d be trying ad hominem.
Oh my god