But this also implies that the word had power 50 years ago that it now lacks. So why didn’t people start fighting back then? Why do we need to save certain words for deployment only on special occasions when people are just going to ignore them anyhow?
He wasn’t wrong about the wolf, he just had bad timing. It’s also due diligence to check the alarm and make sure it is actually effective.
(Also, unrelated to current events but take a moment to think about that story. The townspeople let a wolf eat one of their children because they entrusted the wrong person with their security. Rather than finding a more reliable lookout, they let this annoying kid continue to ring the alarm bell when there was no wolf and then they ignored him and condemned him to death when the wolf showed up. At this point in the story, I’m kind of rooting for the wolf. Fuck these people!)
Well, no. In an ideal world, you would have known what the word genocide meant from the outset, and not attacked people for using it correctly.
In an ideal world, you would have made an argument, not a Pit thread. You would have tried to convince, not silence. You would do better than a Maher rant on his TV show.
And in a slightly less ideal world, you would change your opinion now that you know you got this wrong, instead of stubbornly pressing on.
if you think screaming in people’s face about facsism or whatever is a problem, why the fuck do you think screaming in people’s faces calling them hysterical would be more effective?
Your thread is you going over-the-top to try and convince people. You yourself say that’s a bad idea. Again, why didn’t you a non-Pit thread and discuss the problem?
We are also seeing in this thread the deliberate conflation of two different debates:
Whether the US is on the path to literal genocide
If it is, how to convince people of this.
The first is about acknowledging reality. The second is about messaging. They are not the same, and jumping to 2) to avoid conceding 1) is a bullshit argument.
We see the same thing with the MAGA threads - someone points out that MAGAs are delusional people acting against their best interests and someone else will jump in with “Good luck winning elections with that!”. Which is a different thing.
Blaming people for failing to convince those that refuse to acknowledge reality doesn’t change that reality.
My central argument has been that people who exaggerate the reality rather than stick with the provable facts can experience difficulty in convincing other people of something. I have been saying that if you feel the important issue is convincing people, you should accordingly adjust how you present your position.
Some people have said that genocide is a valid term when applied to other situations and that any suggestions on how to adjust the way they communicate is being “silenced” or told “to shut the fuck up”.
These people have exaggerated the reality rather than sticking with the provable facts. They have experienced difficulty in convincing me to accept their position. If you feel the important issue is convincing me, perhaps you should consider adjusting how you present your position.
Or don’t. I’m just another person on this message board. The stakes here are low. There will be no significant consequences for either of us if you and I disagree.
You know what? I’ve got time to kill. I’m gonna actually do a classic post parsing, in hopes that it will get through to you.
I will concede that this was broadly your original point.
This is false and misleading. What actually happened was that you were mistaken about the actual definition of the word genocide. Eventually, this was figured out, and the definition was quoted to you, with examples to prove it.
You thought they were exaggerating because you were ignorant about the definition of a word.
This just seems to be mixing up different things. All of the arguments used in this thread have avoided using hyperbole. No one has used it to try and convince you. You claim was people trying to convince others.
About tactics? I agree it’s not that big a deal. But it is frustrating seeing someone I generally trust falling into that same old trap of letting their brain rewrite things to make themselves right.
Your central premise in general isn’t bad. Your specifics are rather wrong.
But that doesn’t make it a genuine danger despite how strenuously people ignore it. Mike Pence is an End Times believer, and he would’ve been President if Trump had died in his first term.
Heck, I recall reading an interview after the end of the Cold War where a former Soviet Union official mentioned that the election of Ronald Reagan had the Politburo seriously debating a nuclear first strike on the US, because they thought there was a significant chance that he’d decide to burn the world for Jesus. It was known worldwide that he had inclinations towards starting the Apocalypse, we’ve just decided that’s wrongthink and refuse to admit it. But just because we decide to ignore reality, that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is required to go along with us.
I expected some of this to happen unfortunately. It’s probably going to get worse and it makes me sick to my stomach.
But if the guy smokes where is he supposed to do that? In the article the police tell him not to smoke outside.
Yes it’s too late to do much about it now.