Actually, you know what? Your new statement today is sufficiently different from your statement last night (and both are different from the original statement, but we can ignore that) to the point where it’s extreme all on its own. Specifically, the assumption inherent here:
The idea that if only billionaires were afraid for their lives that they’d embrace progressive policies, and that this would be a good thing, is an extreme one.
They’re the same words (but including and emphasizing the context that DT originally dishonestly left out).
But you’re misreading me once again. I never said “if they felt this fear, that would make them progressive”. I specifically didn’t say that. I said “if they felt this fear, AND it made them progressive, that would be good”.
No, I’m not misreading you - I responded to precisely that line of reasoning like five or six times now.
As I said:
Is not a statement that I can agree with, because while it’s trivially true that if the only outcome was the one you defined that would be good, in actuality I see no reasonable argument for a causal link between one event and the other.
I agree with the statement:
To exactly the same extent that I agree with the statement:
I’ve explained this a number of times now, so I know you already know this. So I’m not sure why you keep insisting that I’m misrepresenting you.
The “trivially true” thing is all I’m saying. “I want a pony” just means “I want a pony”. It doesn’t mean “I want someone to kill my neighbor, steal his pony, and give it to me”. It would be good if I had a pony. Trivially true. It would be good if you had ice cream. Trivially true. It would be good if scumbag billionaires suddenly had a perfect reading and understanding of history and decided that they’d rather be compassionate and a little less wealthy than richer with an increased risk of violent death at the hands of those they exploit.
Trivially true. All I’m saying and all I was ever saying. And I’m glad to see that you still agree with this mundane, trivially true thing.
The whole point of this mundane, trivially true sentiment is that this is obvious. Just about everyone feels this way. We barely even need to discuss it. And yet Democrats are rarely brave enough to say such a popular, obvious, and mundane trivially true thing.
When you make trivially true statements like that immediately after a murder happens, especially when your initial phrasing doesn’t make it very clear at all that all you’re talking about is the trivially true statement only, that makes you come across like an extremist who supports the murder.
Please, please, please don’t misrepresent me, ESPECIALLY to imply that I support something disgusting like the idea that more members of our society being afraid for their lives would be a good thing in any context.
That’s clearly a willful misrepresentation of my position, unless you actually think I support billionaires feeling fear in order for me to get ice cream.
I made the original statement in 2020, four years before the CEO murder.
IMO, fear can be very healthy and appropriate. Fear of car accidents is good if it motivates better usage of safety features. Fear of meeting bears in the woods is good if it motivates one to exercise good bear safety. And yes, I think fear of being murdered by the mob of those one exploits would be good if it were to motivate one to be more compassionate and less exploitative.
Repeating earlier examples - it would be good if Hitler had felt fear of being hanged for war crimes (or pushed to kill himself) and this fear motivated him to refrain from genocide.
It would be good if the funders of Hamas felt fear that they would be killed by special forces and this fear motivated them to stop funding Hamas.
Are either of these sentiments extreme?
Gotcha, I didn’t realize this was such a stale topic. Considering how you were pretty explicit in your original post that the fear in question should be fear of violent death, I don’t think it changes all that much, but I’d have probably been less aware of why it’s a problematic statement at a time before the danger was vividly demonstrated.
Yeah, absolutely! Those are both extreme positions, because of the extreme actions necessary to make Hamas or Hitler (or billionaires) feel that fear.
I think it’s very appropriate to take an extreme position against someone like Hitler, or against a terrorist organization like Hamas.
Maybe you think American billionaires fall into the same category of “people it’s appropriate to take extreme positions against”; if so, I think that’s absolutely unhinged, and that’s probably at the core of our disagreement.
I said nothing about actions, only feelings.
Further, it’s not American billionaires, it’s those billionaires who exploit the vulnerable and cause mass suffering.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in a world of spherical cows, so I’m not particularly interested in discussing moral questions at that ridiculous level of abstraction, nor am I going to interpret people’s moral statements as if they exist in a total vacuum.
The whole reason we are having this discussion is that you insisted that someone viewing your original statement as extreme marked them as a troll. You’ve then spent dozens of posts explaining to me that I need to remove your post from all context and imagine you’re speaking of spherical cows in a vacuum. Fine, I get it, that’s what you meant, you’re not really an extremist. But DemonTree isn’t a troll just because she didn’t realize you were talking about Flatland rather than reality.
False. She’s a troll because she dishonestly snipped the context from my point, using that lack of context to frame it as extreme.
And she even admitted it and apologized.
Really? She admitted to dishonestly snipping your quote in order to frame you as extreme?
Or did she apologize for removing a sentence you felt changed the context because of how you felt about it, but stood by her assessment of your post?
She admitted leaving it out was unfair.
You responded before my edit:
Your assessment of her post seems more dishonest then her assessment of your post, to be honest.
To be honest, just about every post of yours in this thread has twisted my words in the worst possible way, refusing to accept my own explanations about my own words (which, from the beginning, were about how wealthy scumbags should learn about and absorb the factual history of violent uprisings, not about motivating or encouraging violence in any way at all), no matter how many times I’ve tried.
You’ve said you think I’m capable of very reasonable and cogent discussion (or something like that), and yet you seem to refuse to even consider that maybe I was making a reasonable and cogent point with that original statement, but rather it must necessarily have been extreme. Even after my explanations as to what I meant, over and over again.
Bro.
You said:
You literally said, she admitted to dishonestly snipping your post in order to make you seem extreme when she wasn’t.
Here’s what she actually said:
You’re not actually going to pretend that you made a good faith summary of what DemonTree said she did, are you?
Get the fuck out of here.
We both know you’re capable of having good faith discussion, rather than whatever the fuck this thread is. I know you think it’s hilarious and you’re very pleased with yourself over it, but it clearly isn’t a good faith attempt to reach a meeting of the minds. That is something you’re capable of, but for some reason, when DemonTree comes up, you are completely incapable of engaging in good faith.
I literally said that I understand the point you were trying to make and I get it, you’re not actually an extremist; but your post comes across that way.
In what fucking way do I refuse to even consider that you might have been making a reasonable point when I tell you that I see the point you were trying to make, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable or a sign of bad faith to interpret it differently?
Please explain.
There are certain topics, this is one, and Israel in Gaza is another, I find really frustrating here.
Because I find that I have no trouble understanding what each person is saying, and note that somehow they refuse to understand what each other is saying.
and for the most part their views only become unreasonable when taken to an extreme.
You all mostly disagree on where the triggers are, not whether they exist. Do you just like yelling at each other?