Comment on grrr
maniclucky@lemmy.world 1 week agoSo you admit that slurs are not always slurs and context matter. This context was missing for you to call it a slur to begin with. There was no mentally delayed person being called a retard. Glad we can agree your original comment was half-baked.
That’s quite a few words you shoved in my mouth. I at no point said slurs are not always slurs. I acknowledged context matters as a general statement and then posed the context that I believe matters. I, in fact, positively asserted that history, usage, and present recognition by relevant advocacy groups as being relevant context to define it as a slur. You have yet to acknowledge any of those points. I’ll happily yield if you can name why those three things are irrelevant.
What are you left with again? Oh yes a lie about a slur and a false usage of punching down.
Lie? You’ve lost me on that one. I hold that the usage was offensive even if it does not necessarily meet the definition of ‘punching down’ specifically. The bat is still harmed when it strikes the baseball.
Stop bloviating, this is the beginning and end of it.
Is it? You have ignored my points multiple times while I have endeavored to engage with yours. I should know better than to engage with bad faith. Alas.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Glad we could agree even if you are coming from a point of bad faith now. I get it. You are wrong and want to try to make yourself right instead just admitting your comment was a hot take at best and a disingenuous lie at worst.
You say calling it a slur was not lie, but it was. It misrepresented reality and as so meets the definition. I also suspect you knew this hence why a lie is appropriate. I suppose you could claim ignorance, but I think that would be disingenuous at this point.
The way it was used was simply not a slur. Context matters and as I pointed out it was not a disparaging comment used to belittle a group. It was simply a personal insult. You might find it distasteful and I may even agree it can be in the correct context. It simplt wasn’t in this situation though.
I apologize if you feel I have not conceded to any of your points. Most of what you say is not wrong, just the original comment was.
maniclucky@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Ah pigeon chess. Delightful.
I’m still confused. What did I misrepresent? Calling it a slur was a lie? That’s my entire thesis that I have backed at every step.
I contend otherwise. Extensively. With logic and rationale that you refuse to engage with.
You don’t have to concede. I expect you won’t. I’d like you to engage with me rather than put words in my mouth and ignore what you find inconvenient, though even that is out of what I have control over. I’ve specifically marked why I have dismissed some of your arguments (mostly red herring) while you’ve relied on the tried and true ‘nuh uh’ strategy.
I listed three things that, if refuted directly, I would gladly yield. You have ignored this condition that is the basis of having any sort of debate and instead decided that you have won by some metric that you have come up with. Or would you like to babble about context while ignoring it more?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Bad faith confirmed.
You may contend otherwise, but you are wrong. As I pointed out.
I suppose we won’t see eye to eye here and that is fine. Your comment was garbage and I explained why. You have failed to convince me otherwise. Cheers!
maniclucky@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s rather hard to see eye to eye while covering your eyes. Enjoy your hate speech.