So you admit that slurs are not always slurs and that context matters. 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.
What are you left with again? Oh yes a lie about a slur and a false usage of punching down. Stop bloviating, this is the beginning and end of it.
So 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.
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.
Glad we could agree even if you are coming from a point of bad faith now.
Ah pigeon chess. Delightful.
You say calling it a slur was not lie, but it was.
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.
The way it was used was simply not a slur.
I contend otherwise. Extensively. With logic and rationale that you refuse to engage with.
I apologize if you feel I have not conceded to any of your points.
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?
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!
This has taken such a strange turn. At the risk of encouraging the pigeon, you do realize that deception, by definition, requires an intent to deceive? At worst I’m just wrong.
I don’t understand your affinity for hate speech nor why you defend it to the point of apparent delusion, but you might want to ask a therapist about that.
So you admit that slurs are not always slurs and that context matters. 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.
What are you left with again? Oh yes a lie about a slur and a false usage of punching down. Stop bloviating, this is the beginning and end of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
It’s rather hard to see eye to eye while you cover yours. Enjoy your hate speech.
More lies, to be expected.
This has taken such a strange turn. At the risk of encouraging the pigeon, you do realize that deception, by definition, requires an intent to deceive? At worst I’m just wrong.
I don’t understand your affinity for hate speech nor why you defend it to the point of apparent delusion, but you might want to ask a therapist about that.
The only strange turn is you being a total liar and bullshit artist.
I swear you must be some fascist fuck pretending to be a social justice warrior. Sorry if I don’t share you faux outrage.