In response to your edits: I don’t think we’re morally aligned and I don’t think the average person is incapable of understanding that “white people bad” doesn’t mean white people are bad because of their skin color but instead means that the position they occupy in society is bad.
Where did I decide you believe oppression isn’t real?
If it’s driving you up the wall this much, stop replying. Click the check mark instead of the link and don’t worry about it.
You think that the average person, keep in mind the average person in the United States reads around a 6th to 8th* grade level, will read further than white people bad? That, my good person, is blind optimism.
I’m starting to think you disagree and feel attacked and repulsed y my rhetoric
People think contradictory stuff all the time. I didn’t even realize it was contradictory until you explained that my assumption that you were the person repulsed would mean that you also think oppression isn’t real.
I’m not even sure that I agree that one flows from, implies or requires the other but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if it did.
assumption that you were the person repulsed would mean that you also think oppression isn’t real.
Here is proof you do not read. “Disagree and are repulsed”. Disagree. You very clearly stated that you, for some reason, think I disagree with your message.
Edit: sorry, sorry. You said you were beginning to think. Lest I be guilty of the same thing you are. Although, truth be told, with how clearly adversarial you’ve been I doubt that the distinction matters.
Yeah I said that, but I don’t believe that people have internally consistent ideas. Like I said, you could disagree with me and feel repulsed by my words and still believe that oppression exists. It’s not a problem, no one’s gonna whip out the uno contradiction card.
It’s not a debatelord tactic to accept the possibility that people can hold different ideas at the same time and try to understand them instead of boxing them into a corner and whipping out logical fallacy words.
I’m not being a debatelord when I entertain the possibility that you could think two things that are in opposition at the same time.
You’ll have to forgive me for reading you extra carefully and responding based on that. I don’t want to come across as having only skimmed your well thought out responses.
What are the goalposts here and how does someone score? I’m not thinking like that, I’m just trying to understand someone who seems to have an interesting viewpoint that’s different than mine.
In response to your edits: I don’t think we’re morally aligned and I don’t think the average person is incapable of understanding that “white people bad” doesn’t mean white people are bad because of their skin color but instead means that the position they occupy in society is bad.
Where did I decide you believe oppression isn’t real?
If it’s driving you up the wall this much, stop replying. Click the check mark instead of the link and don’t worry about it.
You think that the average person, keep in mind the average person in the United States reads around a 6th to 8th* grade level, will read further than white people bad? That, my good person, is blind optimism.
Idk, maybe when you wrote this.
*Edited for accuracy.
People think contradictory stuff all the time. I didn’t even realize it was contradictory until you explained that my assumption that you were the person repulsed would mean that you also think oppression isn’t real.
I’m not even sure that I agree that one flows from, implies or requires the other but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if it did.
Here is proof you do not read. “Disagree and are repulsed”. Disagree. You very clearly stated that you, for some reason, think I disagree with your message.
Edit: sorry, sorry. You said you were beginning to think. Lest I be guilty of the same thing you are. Although, truth be told, with how clearly adversarial you’ve been I doubt that the distinction matters.
I don’t know what else to say.
Yeah I said that, but I don’t believe that people have internally consistent ideas. Like I said, you could disagree with me and feel repulsed by my words and still believe that oppression exists. It’s not a problem, no one’s gonna whip out the uno contradiction card.
Ugh, this is why I called it over in the other reply. Debatelord tactics are fucking slimy.
It’s not a debatelord tactic to accept the possibility that people can hold different ideas at the same time and try to understand them instead of boxing them into a corner and whipping out logical fallacy words.
I’m not being a debatelord when I entertain the possibility that you could think two things that are in opposition at the same time.
No, you’re being a debatelord for picking apart a message written in my spare time as if it were an MLA cited essay.
You’re being a debatelord for having changed the goalposts 5-6 times, the way you’re trying to do in the other message.
Slimy.
You’ll have to forgive me for reading you extra carefully and responding based on that. I don’t want to come across as having only skimmed your well thought out responses.
What are the goalposts here and how does someone score? I’m not thinking like that, I’m just trying to understand someone who seems to have an interesting viewpoint that’s different than mine.