not want to hold space for knee-jerk, lazy ableism infecting the discourse.
Okay, don’t really have the energy RN to write a more serious reply to this, but if nothing else I want to people out that the users on this site are wildly inconsistent about how serious of a space they want this to be. One minute it’s a BS shitposting forum where people shoot the shit but another we’re all talking about “infecting the discourse”. What fucking discourse? This place is 90% jokes about combining the word penis and bean!
Yeah, there’s very little “discourse” except to litigate site policy. I’d love if the site was more serious and interested in being involved in influencing “discourse,” but it turned away from that idea years ago.
Also, I want to say, I see this weird dynamic play out in leftist spaces where if there’s any discussion on whether something is harmful to a marginalized community and if one person from that community says it is vs another who says it isn’t, the former always seems to assume they have some inherent moral authority and feels at will to speak down to the latter.
I’m not doing that. I’m not even counting on any particular ND person chiming in to say they feel personally harmed by the word. I’m ND myself and I don’t feel any connection to it. That isn’t really the point I’m making, nor the point people were making when it was made site policy.
I would even say ND people on here defending it are wrong to.
I would not independently bring up the comparison, but the inverse of this comparison is closer to the truth, because it’s the “let people say d**b” crowd that are opposing censorship.* I would absolutely not draw a moral equivalence between Third Way and you all (a courtesy you aren’t giving your “comrades” here), but in terms of basic structure there is only one way this comparison can go, so it’s probably better to set it aside because it’s not productive.
*I’m not some shitlib who thinks censorship is the evil of all evils, it’s just objectively what is being discussed here regardless of which side is correct.
In real life, people in the west are primed to be smugly anti- pc/woke/dei what have you by a larger system. It isn’t a reaction that comes naturally from within them.
To be “censored” in any meaningful or impactful sense you have to have been saying some novel thing in the first place.
I’m really not. You can point to the actual root of the reactionary thought rather than relying on “dumb” and the like, which is at best a stand-in for that, and at worst ableism. This can only improve the communication of your point, if you actually have one.
Whereas the Third Way blacklist is seeking to remove any discussion of or reference to systems of oppression.
As I said, your accusation was senseless and absurdly accusatory, because your description of Third Way there (which is accurate) has nothing to do with people complaining about the word being banned, even if they are wrong for exactly the reason that you describe, because those two things are not remotely the same.
How is this take any different from the third way think tank’s “anti-pc” blacklist discourse? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5465386-democrats-avoid-political-correctness/
Also ND, not sure why you think it’s infantalizing to not want to hold space for knee-jerk, lazy ableism infecting the discourse.
Okay, don’t really have the energy RN to write a more serious reply to this, but if nothing else I want to people out that the users on this site are wildly inconsistent about how serious of a space they want this to be. One minute it’s a BS shitposting forum where people shoot the shit but another we’re all talking about “infecting the discourse”. What fucking discourse? This place is 90% jokes about combining the word penis and bean!
Yeah, there’s very little “discourse” except to litigate site policy. I’d love if the site was more serious and interested in being involved in influencing “discourse,” but it turned away from that idea years ago.
I don’t think how serious the site is or should be matters much to the conversation.
Also, I want to say, I see this weird dynamic play out in leftist spaces where if there’s any discussion on whether something is harmful to a marginalized community and if one person from that community says it is vs another who says it isn’t, the former always seems to assume they have some inherent moral authority and feels at will to speak down to the latter.
I’m not doing that. I’m not even counting on any particular ND person chiming in to say they feel personally harmed by the word. I’m ND myself and I don’t feel any connection to it. That isn’t really the point I’m making, nor the point people were making when it was made site policy.
I would even say ND people on here defending it are wrong to.
I would not independently bring up the comparison, but the inverse of this comparison is closer to the truth, because it’s the “let people say d**b” crowd that are opposing censorship.* I would absolutely not draw a moral equivalence between Third Way and you all (a courtesy you aren’t giving your “comrades” here), but in terms of basic structure there is only one way this comparison can go, so it’s probably better to set it aside because it’s not productive.
*I’m not some shitlib who thinks censorship is the evil of all evils, it’s just objectively what is being discussed here regardless of which side is correct.
In real life, people in the west are primed to be smugly anti- pc/woke/dei what have you by a larger system. It isn’t a reaction that comes naturally from within them.
To be “censored” in any meaningful or impactful sense you have to have been saying some novel thing in the first place.
You’re just playing with words in a meaningless way to avoid that your comparison was senseless and absurdly accusatory.
I’m really not. You can point to the actual root of the reactionary thought rather than relying on “dumb” and the like, which is at best a stand-in for that, and at worst ableism. This can only improve the communication of your point, if you actually have one.
Whereas the Third Way blacklist is seeking to remove any discussion of or reference to systems of oppression.
As I said, your accusation was senseless and absurdly accusatory, because your description of Third Way there (which is accurate) has nothing to do with people complaining about the word being banned, even if they are wrong for exactly the reason that you describe, because those two things are not remotely the same.