But systems of online communication tend to strip context constantly. It’s the default way in which we reference and discuss. See for example the use of quotes in this and your comment
Crappily designed, poorly moderated platforms devoid of anything approaching community do. This is not Twitter or Facebook, though.
Not an useful argument IMO. This is basically pre-supposing bad faith.
And like, er, almost all of us have some vested interest in not upsetting the apple cart. Few people live entirely separate from capitalism and its power structures.
No. Quoting in a discussion is not stripping all context for the reader, because you apparently understand that it’s a quote of something else said in the thread. You didn’t ask me “What do those quotation marks mean? What is reality?”
If you feel talking about specific things, and specific comments is not abstract enough to get at the real truth of something, maybe you should argue your point in mathematic notation, showing all your work, proofs, and assumptions along the way? I’d be happy to rebut when you’ve got that ready.
No. It’s recognizing the reality that there are a lot of bad faith bears out there. And some in here.
I probably have more interest than most. I carry around privilege like an invisible, giant, bubble-wrap sphere. But I still work to upset the apple cart, because I recognize that I’m better off with a more equal and just society than riding on the comfortable coattails of the wealthy and powerful.
I, perhaps more than most on BB, have a vested interest in capitalism. And yet here I am, pointing out that the completely unregulated capitalism pushed by the conservative establishment leads to the kind of inequality that gives rise to Hitlers and Robespierres, and that said conservative establishment will readily ally itself with right-wing populists given the opportunity.
The reason I do this is because, unlike Peter Thiel and his Libertarian ilk, I don’t limit my ideal conception of capitalism to the predatory late-stage version we see in play now, and therefore don’t see it as fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. Some on the left here will certainly see that as naive, and that’s fine. But what we’ll agree on is that liberal democracy is by and large a societal good and that fascism is a threat to it that needs to be countered, even with (gasp) uncivil and provocative historical imagery.
Importantly, though, it’s not invisible to you. That’s how you get to…
Even if it means invoking metaphors about white male privilege that some are deeply concerned might hurt the fee-fees of other white males.
That’s funny, because I think we’ve served to illustrate already my original point. A single quote does not entirely obscure the context, but the flow of the conversation is lost from quote reply to quote reply. The original context of my point - which I am imagining when I talk about online systems of communication stripping context - has been lost to the vagaries of the comment system.
You’re only illustrating how to derail. Now you’re patting yourself on the back for doing it.
This is a thread where people were talking about the inanity of comparing guillotine gifs to Donald Trump’s murder spree video. Specifically.
Every comment quote in Discourse has a easy way to expand the quote to the full comment. On the upper right corner of the quote box, there are two buttons: an up arrow (which takes you to the quoted comment in the thread) and a down carat, which expands the quoted comment inside the current post.
I thought it was a thread where people were talking about the appropriateness of “embracing” instead of “countering” the Trump murder spree video, with the guillotine gif only as an example of this.
And the context to that is Here's the mashup video of Trump mass-murdering his enemies, shown at his resort to supporters
which implies we are talking about public memes not bbs memes.
It was split off by the mods from the original topic because Bernel derailed the original topic by insisting on a false equivalency between the guillotine images used here and the video in general.
Nobody here has embraced Trump’s people showing the murder video at Trump’s conference.
If you think a guillotine gif is a sign of approving of Trump threatening journalists, you’re equating the two, even though they’re in wildly and profoundly different contexts.
Where does Bernel refer to guillotine memes other than in the context of boofh’s statement about embracing Trump’s strategy?
It’s not “Public memes: Are you for them 100% of the time or do you want them banned”
If you want to have that conversation, I don’t think you’ll find it here.
No, it’s “do we want to inject ambiguous memes into the public sphere in the way Trump does to create deniable provocation”
When he begins debating @the_borderer, above.
That’s certainly what the borderer thinks they are talking about, but which post from Bernel are you referring to?
This one, where he begins his claim that posting a guillotine image here is as threatening as that Kingsman video being posted more generally. He only digs his heels in deeper when others challenge that position.
@the_borderer, by the way, understands on a much more fundamental level than most of us why trying to address and counter fascists with civility is dangerous.
When he says “threatening people with guillotines”, why do you make the inference that he means “posting a guillotine image here”, and not doing the thing Kris_Asard said, which b00fh said we should embrace, which he replied to saying was bad?
Because he doesn’t allow for any other reason why one might post a guillotine image here – zealously so. Seriously, read through this entire topic. It’s right there.