Questioning that leads me to think that while the commenter is literally wrong, they were not attempting to state a literal fact. They are trying to point toward inaction (re: abortion not being codified) and equating it to the action of criminalisimg abortion (even laying blame on the inaction over the action).
That’s obviously literally false, but it’s also pretty clear to me that isn’t the point they were making, which you appear to have chosen not to engage with. Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument. Just an outsider perspective, what I don’t see here is any reason for animosity for placing blame on democrats for something they were inarguably involved in. When blamed by someone totally estranged from the right, that feels the D’s are supposed to be their representation, it’s pretty piss poor representation in some respects and arguing it isn’t just seems ridiculous to me
Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument.
Instead I challenge folks to consider what place illogical and false statements have in a discussion, especially when there’s no acknowledgement of exaggeration, and it’s over a medium that allows for no additional context (Lemmy comments). Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your best friends might know that you’re actually a fairly well informed person who just exaggerates a little when getting on your soapbox, but there is no such assurance of that online, we’ve all read far more insane comments.
A certain orange Cheeto always had his acolytes interpreting his statements by going “what he REALLY meant was…”, let’s do our best to avoid ambiguity where we can.
“It’s as if the Democrats banned abortion by not taking action while roe v wade was enforced”
On the whole I agree with you, I don’t think it warrants such absolute statements though. I often subconsciously expect people to fill in the gaps without providing sufficient context, because of my ADHD. Discerning intended meaning behind a potentially ambiguous statement is something I do constantly and would hope others to do of my statements. I don’t think I should need to disclose my condition to others as a prerequisite to converse, and I think my thoughts on various topics have value even if I’m not careful to put them forward in a well-rounded way. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt transcends the literal nature of conversations generally and instead goes to considering the material conditions of the speaker. For instance, the literal indications given by the commenter would suggest they are republican, but I’d put it to you that they consider themselves estranged from the right. Would you disagree? I’m not asking for your opinion of how appropriate their rhetoric is for purposes of advancing the causes of those estranged from the right - just to guess at the position you think they’re coming from. Because if we can agree that they think they are coming from a position of progress, but you still think it’s most appropriate to lambast people in such a position for speaking incorrectly on it, I don’t know if either of your positions are viable towards helping that progress to come to fruition. It seems needlessly divisive and counterproductive in the context of the unity of the right. Some republicans might come out and say they’re voting Biden as part of a strategy to protect their own positions in other elections, I wouldn’t count on the actual republican constituency having any issues voting as a bloc.
I get that it’s a tough position to be in and that you’re likely trying to foster unity of the left yourself, but I’d encourage you to actually look into things such as voting uncommitted in earnest, to be able to convince people it’s a bad thing more effectively, if that’s still your opinion on it. If you’re interested, here’s a video someone I follow uploaded the other day that I felt gave me a decent and well-reasoned alternative perspective on it: https://youtu.be/63wxNNd33Cg?si=b6CY0R9_-mHB9s99
I feel like you’re demanding the take part of the give-and-take flow of constructive argumentation upfront. This serves mostly to misdirect from the issue rather event attempt to tackle it, and that’s why it’s not compelling to me
IMO online comments are an extremely poor medium for ambiguous comments because:
There’s very little context provided.
“Conversations” typically are composed of, at most, 3-4 messages from each party.
It takes a while for each party to type up their response.
Due to these reasons, ambiguities should at least attempt to be cleared up with up front.
Sure you don’t have to do that, but then you just get misunderstood, wasting everyone’s time.
What you’re suggesting applies far more easily in an IRL conversation. I can look for body language, like a smile indicating joking. Conversations take seconds instead of minutes, and there’s far more back and forth
Agree again. In this instance the commenter was pretty clearly pro-abortion though. I think in terms of speculating on their potential position with limited info, that’s also a vector where you could have at least a reasonable degree of certainty about which quadrant of the political compass they fall in.
Questioning that leads me to think that while the commenter is literally wrong, they were not attempting to state a literal fact. They are trying to point toward inaction (re: abortion not being codified) and equating it to the action of criminalisimg abortion (even laying blame on the inaction over the action).
That’s obviously literally false, but it’s also pretty clear to me that isn’t the point they were making, which you appear to have chosen not to engage with. Anyone reading this should question why logical one-ups take precedence in discourse over addressing the material argument. Just an outsider perspective, what I don’t see here is any reason for animosity for placing blame on democrats for something they were inarguably involved in. When blamed by someone totally estranged from the right, that feels the D’s are supposed to be their representation, it’s pretty piss poor representation in some respects and arguing it isn’t just seems ridiculous to me
Instead I challenge folks to consider what place illogical and false statements have in a discussion, especially when there’s no acknowledgement of exaggeration, and it’s over a medium that allows for no additional context (Lemmy comments). Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your best friends might know that you’re actually a fairly well informed person who just exaggerates a little when getting on your soapbox, but there is no such assurance of that online, we’ve all read far more insane comments.
A certain orange Cheeto always had his acolytes interpreting his statements by going “what he REALLY meant was…”, let’s do our best to avoid ambiguity where we can.
“It’s as if the Democrats banned abortion by not taking action while roe v wade was enforced”
On the whole I agree with you, I don’t think it warrants such absolute statements though. I often subconsciously expect people to fill in the gaps without providing sufficient context, because of my ADHD. Discerning intended meaning behind a potentially ambiguous statement is something I do constantly and would hope others to do of my statements. I don’t think I should need to disclose my condition to others as a prerequisite to converse, and I think my thoughts on various topics have value even if I’m not careful to put them forward in a well-rounded way. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt transcends the literal nature of conversations generally and instead goes to considering the material conditions of the speaker. For instance, the literal indications given by the commenter would suggest they are republican, but I’d put it to you that they consider themselves estranged from the right. Would you disagree? I’m not asking for your opinion of how appropriate their rhetoric is for purposes of advancing the causes of those estranged from the right - just to guess at the position you think they’re coming from. Because if we can agree that they think they are coming from a position of progress, but you still think it’s most appropriate to lambast people in such a position for speaking incorrectly on it, I don’t know if either of your positions are viable towards helping that progress to come to fruition. It seems needlessly divisive and counterproductive in the context of the unity of the right. Some republicans might come out and say they’re voting Biden as part of a strategy to protect their own positions in other elections, I wouldn’t count on the actual republican constituency having any issues voting as a bloc.
I get that it’s a tough position to be in and that you’re likely trying to foster unity of the left yourself, but I’d encourage you to actually look into things such as voting uncommitted in earnest, to be able to convince people it’s a bad thing more effectively, if that’s still your opinion on it. If you’re interested, here’s a video someone I follow uploaded the other day that I felt gave me a decent and well-reasoned alternative perspective on it: https://youtu.be/63wxNNd33Cg?si=b6CY0R9_-mHB9s99
The proper reply to being called out for relaying an untruth is “my bad, what I meant is __”, and life goes on. That’s how discourse should go.
It’s not asking for much.
There’s no need to pander to ambiguity when a miscommunication is easily corrected.
RE: actual subject on Biden, no horse in this race. Just chimed in because I hate seeing potential misinformation.
I feel like you’re demanding the take part of the give-and-take flow of constructive argumentation upfront. This serves mostly to misdirect from the issue rather event attempt to tackle it, and that’s why it’s not compelling to me
That’s fair.
IMO online comments are an extremely poor medium for ambiguous comments because:
Due to these reasons, ambiguities should at least attempt to be cleared up with up front.
Sure you don’t have to do that, but then you just get misunderstood, wasting everyone’s time.
What you’re suggesting applies far more easily in an IRL conversation. I can look for body language, like a smile indicating joking. Conversations take seconds instead of minutes, and there’s far more back and forth
Agree again. In this instance the commenter was pretty clearly pro-abortion though. I think in terms of speculating on their potential position with limited info, that’s also a vector where you could have at least a reasonable degree of certainty about which quadrant of the political compass they fall in.