I’m not only not religious, I bill myself as pretty anti-religious. So, wrong. Trying to attack me personally with some made-up trait about me doesn’t make you right just because you dislike my correction. Nice straw-man though.
Nor am I republican, nor am I against drag queens, or any other bullshit made up trait you can think of. I’m wholly for the equal treatment of all humans, regardless of … well, practically any trait you could categorize a group of people with.
What I AM against, however - is liars and people who try to misconstrue factual information.
To me it seems that on lemmy (as it was/is in reddit) the majority of users is leaning more to one side (if not the extreme side) of the ideologies and people who try to be reasonable get quickly shut down for not fitting this or that narrative. That’s sad in my opinion because all it’s doing is replicating what used to be the norm on the opposite side of the spectrum and you can clearly see that most don’t even notice it. For all intents and purposes they believe 100% that they are right and therefore no nuances are allowed, period. But you know, maybe the biggot is you for not accepting that last 1% of the current narrative… I feel I’m in the same boat as you though.
So many of these instances are how folks come across, some are coarse and some not so much. Active voice, authoritative tone, and missing the vibe can really impact perception. Of course reality is highly nuanced, but low stake comment sections often aren’t. Just my 2c.
That’s the state of the world today unfortunately. You either fit into this perfectly defined “slot” of people, or the moment you deviate from it even a smidge, you’re put on the “You’re against us!!” side.
I’ve gotten so tired of it, tbh. Doesn’t look like nuance is allowed here on Lemmy either. I’m hoping that’ll change. I was hoping that the diaspora of people here were kind of the “early adopters” that made the initial reddit so great - but it doesn’t look like that’s the case this time. Honestly, I’m not even trying to stir shit either. It would be refreshing to actually discuss these topics honestly though - without this…what I call “listening to reply” stuff. I guarantee I wouldn’t see any of the people here as my enemy in the real world. But I am an engineer and programmer. I work with facts, logic, and when something is even slightly misplaced, things break. So likewise, I dislike misinformation or logic that doesn’t flow right.
But you’re not being logical. The meme title states that one group has definitely hurt children. That’s simply a fact.
You then said: “But the way it’s worded is basically a claim into itself that the bottom group has NEVER…EVER harmed a child. Which, being an absolutist statement probably doesn’t hold water.”
That’s your non-factual interpretation of the statement. That’s how you saw it and that wasn’t based on any of the words contained in the title but what you thought they were trying to imply.
If you’re going to claim you’re solely interested in logic and fact then you really need to own that position.
Both groups have definitely hurt children though…how is that not logical?
The meme says “ONE group” has. That’s not true. Both groups have. You don’t seem to be making an argument here in good faith. It’s very clear that my interpretation is the same interpretation as is being held in the rest of this community. Do you disagree? Because I can find a dozen examples of people arguing with me that the bottom group has never hurt children. which means – in fact – my “interpretation” as you so put it, is accurate, and therefore, so is my initial argument.
If you were to expand what the title of this post was saying to be more concise, it would read “One [of these] group[s] playing dress up has definitely hurt children”. And that is the interpretation everyone else has come to in this thread.
The meme states that one group has hurt kids…and that’s it. And that is a fact. One group has hurt kids. You’re interpretation that the meme is saying only one group has hurt kids is just that - your interpretation. I’m asking you to look at the your statements that you are basing your opinion on logic and facts and weigh that against the exact wording of this meme. Factually, the meme states one group has hurt kids. It does not say only one group has hurt kids. The truth of that can be seen by simply coldly and logically reading the title of the post/meme.
But if you’re now saying that facts and logic aren’t the only thing that come into play here then I agree with you. In that case, we have to look at context and probability, neither of which can be factual as the data is scant. But it’s also pretty reasonable, based on what we do have, that its accurate to refer to priests as a group that hurt kids. We can’t really say that about drag artists.
I’m sorry that you’re interpreting the statement incorrectly, because the statement doesn’t stand on its own. The statement stands with the meme it was posted with. With 2 groups of people pictured. You’re arguing tangentially to reality here. I’m sorry if you’ve failed to understand. Good luck.
Your correction reveals some kind of hatred, but that between you, your psychiatrist and your meds.
Searching with a microscope for any case that gives credence to a sick group of haters doesn’t speak well of you, so I don’t particularly care about being unflinchingly objective. You don’t seem to be worth it.
And yet you equate individual actions with MASSIVE FUCKOFF EFFORTS by thousands of people, all over the world, for decades, to give priests the ability to rape children on the daily.
If you actually equate these things I suggest a therapist.
I’m not only not religious, I bill myself as pretty anti-religious. So, wrong. Trying to attack me personally with some made-up trait about me doesn’t make you right just because you dislike my correction. Nice straw-man though.
Nor am I republican, nor am I against drag queens, or any other bullshit made up trait you can think of. I’m wholly for the equal treatment of all humans, regardless of … well, practically any trait you could categorize a group of people with.
What I AM against, however - is liars and people who try to misconstrue factual information.
To me it seems that on lemmy (as it was/is in reddit) the majority of users is leaning more to one side (if not the extreme side) of the ideologies and people who try to be reasonable get quickly shut down for not fitting this or that narrative. That’s sad in my opinion because all it’s doing is replicating what used to be the norm on the opposite side of the spectrum and you can clearly see that most don’t even notice it. For all intents and purposes they believe 100% that they are right and therefore no nuances are allowed, period. But you know, maybe the biggot is you for not accepting that last 1% of the current narrative… I feel I’m in the same boat as you though.
So many of these instances are how folks come across, some are coarse and some not so much. Active voice, authoritative tone, and missing the vibe can really impact perception. Of course reality is highly nuanced, but low stake comment sections often aren’t. Just my 2c.
That’s the state of the world today unfortunately. You either fit into this perfectly defined “slot” of people, or the moment you deviate from it even a smidge, you’re put on the “You’re against us!!” side.
I’ve gotten so tired of it, tbh. Doesn’t look like nuance is allowed here on Lemmy either. I’m hoping that’ll change. I was hoping that the diaspora of people here were kind of the “early adopters” that made the initial reddit so great - but it doesn’t look like that’s the case this time. Honestly, I’m not even trying to stir shit either. It would be refreshing to actually discuss these topics honestly though - without this…what I call “listening to reply” stuff. I guarantee I wouldn’t see any of the people here as my enemy in the real world. But I am an engineer and programmer. I work with facts, logic, and when something is even slightly misplaced, things break. So likewise, I dislike misinformation or logic that doesn’t flow right.
But you’re not being logical. The meme title states that one group has definitely hurt children. That’s simply a fact.
You then said: “But the way it’s worded is basically a claim into itself that the bottom group has NEVER…EVER harmed a child. Which, being an absolutist statement probably doesn’t hold water.”
That’s your non-factual interpretation of the statement. That’s how you saw it and that wasn’t based on any of the words contained in the title but what you thought they were trying to imply.
If you’re going to claim you’re solely interested in logic and fact then you really need to own that position.
Both groups have definitely hurt children though…how is that not logical?
The meme says “ONE group” has. That’s not true. Both groups have. You don’t seem to be making an argument here in good faith. It’s very clear that my interpretation is the same interpretation as is being held in the rest of this community. Do you disagree? Because I can find a dozen examples of people arguing with me that the bottom group has never hurt children. which means – in fact – my “interpretation” as you so put it, is accurate, and therefore, so is my initial argument.
If you were to expand what the title of this post was saying to be more concise, it would read “One [of these] group[s] playing dress up has definitely hurt children”. And that is the interpretation everyone else has come to in this thread.
The meme states that one group has hurt kids…and that’s it. And that is a fact. One group has hurt kids. You’re interpretation that the meme is saying only one group has hurt kids is just that - your interpretation. I’m asking you to look at the your statements that you are basing your opinion on logic and facts and weigh that against the exact wording of this meme. Factually, the meme states one group has hurt kids. It does not say only one group has hurt kids. The truth of that can be seen by simply coldly and logically reading the title of the post/meme.
But if you’re now saying that facts and logic aren’t the only thing that come into play here then I agree with you. In that case, we have to look at context and probability, neither of which can be factual as the data is scant. But it’s also pretty reasonable, based on what we do have, that its accurate to refer to priests as a group that hurt kids. We can’t really say that about drag artists.
I’m sorry that you’re interpreting the statement incorrectly, because the statement doesn’t stand on its own. The statement stands with the meme it was posted with. With 2 groups of people pictured. You’re arguing tangentially to reality here. I’m sorry if you’ve failed to understand. Good luck.
I’ve answered elsewhere but I am being slightly disingenuous to try and make a point, I admit.
FWIW, you’re not alone in your disappointment. I like Lemmy but critical thinking is in short supply.
Your correction reveals some kind of hatred, but that between you, your psychiatrist and your meds.
Searching with a microscope for any case that gives credence to a sick group of haters doesn’t speak well of you, so I don’t particularly care about being unflinchingly objective. You don’t seem to be worth it.
Seems like you’re putting a lot of self projection into your replies. Also, you’re violating rule #4.
And yet you equate individual actions with MASSIVE FUCKOFF EFFORTS by thousands of people, all over the world, for decades, to give priests the ability to rape children on the daily.
If you actually equate these things I suggest a therapist.