I wrote:
My warning was because the phrase implies that I’m calling the poster an asshole.
Thing is, I think I wasn’t. I was suggesting that everyone on earth has a legal right to express an opinion. If I’d wanted to suggest that the poster was an asshole, I’d have prefaced “asshole” with “other.”
On rereading, I can see that it’s a bit ambiguous. I disagree that warnings should be given for unintentional ambiguity.
I agree that it’s ambiguous and not warning fodder. But mentioning Carrot Top was overthetop. It’s nearly 2014. Can we agree to forget he ever existed?
Not warning material. Nice bit 'o writing, actually.
Definitely over the top and deserving of a warning. Glad to see one was issued for that rant.
What rant? LHoD is listing types of characters whose right to express an opinion without government interference should be defended.
He compared a poster to the fucking Klan.
No, he really dint.
No he didn’t. He was making a partial list of people who are allowed to have opinions - a list that contained both the poster and KKK members. There are innumerable lists that would contain both of those people, such as a list of organic life forms. Merely pointing out that two people exist in the same (self-evident) category is not drawing any comparison between them other than their colocalization within that category.
Yes, he really did.
I don’t read that as saying that the poster is an asshole-- I read it as saying that, even if the poster were an asshole, it wouldn’t matter. Big difference.
Sorry, Oakminster. I disagree with you. By listing things in a series, he is not necessarily pointing out what they have in common – except that they all have the right to speak. He could have added your name and mine, and the meaning would not change. These people have a good thing in common.
He included the poster on a list that included the Klan (and Carrot Top for that matter). The list of people who have the right to free speech w/o government interference.
Essentially, he’s providing a list of people he considers to be assholes which includes the poster he was answering. That’s insulting. And worthy of the warning he got.
No, he’s making a list of people/groups whose opinions he disagrees with, but have the right to free speech. He might consider some to also be assholes, but it’s not the same thing. You really think he thinks Carrot Top is an asshole?
Its heavily implied that everybody on that list is an asshole, and since the first word on the list is “You”, its pretty obvious to me that it deserved a warning.
I had to think about it a bit, but I concur. No matter how finely you parse the sentence on a logical/grammatical basis, the gist of it is “You assholes…” with emphasis on the particular (nasty) subspecies of 'holes.
So if I say “Psychopaths, kleptomaniacs, paedophiles, coprophages and homosexuals will all claim that the urges they act on are the ones they are born with”, are we all good or will anyone be outraged because I mention gays in the same breath as the other four? :dubious:
What would be the point of saying that–would it be to suggest that acting on inborn urges is unacceptable?
Because the whole point of my list was to show that everyone’s opinion is defensible. I was saying that you, or anyone else, has the legal right to an opinion. Listing nice people with opinions would be obvious; there’s a reason why it wasn’t full of people like Mr. Rogers and Mother Theresa. Nobody tries to stifle their opinions.
I included “you” on the list out of a perhaps misguided urge to make the concept personal and to tie it into the Voltaire quote. That shouldn’t have been on the list. But it wasn’t on the list to accuse aldi of being an asshole–I don’t know aldi from Adam and have no opinion on him. “You” was on the list because it tied into the specific bit I was addressing.
Again, I can see how the wording is ambiguous. I apologize for the ambiguity, and wish I’d phrased it otherwise. However, I think warnings given for unintentional ambiguity are poor form, especially given how many folk in this thread show that they read my sentence the way I intended for it to be read.
Personally, I thought the meaning was clear.
Except you didn’t talk about everyone. You only mentioned those you found to be assholes. If you had left out the “you” it would have been fine. If you really had included everyone by mentioning people you liked and agreed with it would be fine. As it was you were tiptoeing the line of calling the poster an asshole and got called on it.