Part of the reason I have autism in my name is so comrades I expect to be able to do so will not try to dunk on me for normal autistic behavior like caring about accuracy in rhetoric.
Please don’t take a defensive stance and attack me like I’m some federated user (not that you all aren’t obnoxiously agressive with federated users who havent actually earned it anyway sometimes, ive called it out a few times recently) spouting liberal rhetoric.
This is an obvious subtweet so fuck it i’m just going to screenshot what im talking about
In this thread I was arguing with the federated lib elsewhere, which was easy to see. But these two users here @Kieselguhr@hexbear.net and @ElHexo@hexbear.net decided to compare me to liberal fact checkers (liberal fact checkers use differences that dont actually matter to try to spin things as false, this is not what was happening here, as I wasnt trying to spin Kieselguhr as false, merely give them advice, AND the difference actually is material). Which frankly is an insulting comparison to make towards an autistic comrade. Then ElHexo decided to tell me information I already knew but wasnt relevant to the correction I made.
Fact checking isnt inherently wrong and playing fast and loose with information in your rhetoric isnt lib shit. Don’t give people holes to gotcha you with lmao. Caring about truth is supposed to be one of our values. We are materialists. The fact that they got upbeared over me for this dunk bothers me too, wish I could see upbears so I could correct everyone involved in that too. Please, as leftists, care about truth and dont give liberals opening to gotcha you with. The fact that you’ve let the bad faith actions of liberal fact checkers start to make you post-truth is not a good sign. Readjust your thinking.
Finally, you really shouldnt approach any fellow Hexbear doing this by assuming bad faith like this, but especially not one with autism in the username. I was trying to improve rhetoric, not prove you wrong. Coming at me aggressively was not an appropriate response. We really should have an official rule of assuming good faith from fellow Hexbears. Especially long standing ones like myself, and ones who are open about being neurodiverse on top of that.
The response in the screenshot reads as a joke to me, the meaning of which is that a fraction of half the Dems not giving an ovation because they weren’t there doesn’t matter nor actually contradict the point made. If we are being very specific, the claim was just that the Democrats gave a standing ovation, and that is technically true. A ton of them were present and they did that. This is a valid way to express that fact.
I would say that the issue may be that the response could be interpreted as snarky. It’s sometimes hard to tell what is a normal joke and what is dunking snark and what is a sarcastic but comradely ribbing. I think it’s a good practice for those making jokes to be as obvious as possible but also for those who find them troubling to also directly ask. If it were me, I would have interpreted it as the last one: a comradely ribbing calling out some liberalism.
I do also think that the culture here is and always has been to make fun of liberalism, and with all respect, your counterpoint in the screenshot is liberalism. So for everyone to remain and be comfortable, either the site culture needs to change or we need to make peace with seeing our own liberalism called out sometimes, and even made fun of a bit.
Finally, I think making a joke reference like this is often perceived as the less critical way to engage with someone. Someone writing a paragraph on how this is a liberal attitude might be conveying that this is a much more serious correction than it really is, whereas goofing around may communicate that it is minor. I know this is the opposite of how someone that is on the spectrum may perceive that way of communicating. I’m not sure what the best way forward is but I hope this contextualization is helpful either way.
I mostly take this well and think its good analysis but
and with all respect, your counterpoint in the screenshot is liberalism.
I dont get this. I dont get how the truth is liberalism. Half the democrats weren’t there and objected to Netanyahu’s speech for various reasons. Thats just a fact. Why are facts liberalism? Shouldn’t we value truth? I’m missing something.
I don’t think it is fair to summarize your screenshotted response as just some facts. You were very explicitly saying the person you were responding to was not factual, and I have just stated how what they said was actually perfectly valid. The fact that not all Dems were there is true and is a fact. The point being made based on this, however, is incorrect and is a form of liberalism that serves to let the capitalist party off the hook for their massive support for the Zionist entity. That half were not there does not change the fact that the Dems still gave Netanyahu a standing ovation. The fact that none of them except Tlaib could even forward a direct criticism is supportive of the validity of that statement. In addition, broad-brushing does not imply every single member doing exactly the same thing, but whether it is representative. I would say giving Netanyahu a standing ovation is indeed representative, in part demonstrated by the aforementioned weakness of opposition.
Well, I still think the distinciton is material, but I at least understand your perspective, thank you.
I’m curious why you think the distinction is material? In my reading of it, while you were clear that you were in agreement with their argument, your comment just feels like it derailed the point that the other person made and would veer the conversation into semantics.
I’m autistic and can be very pedantic lol. So I think I can see why you’d find it so important, but I think the fact that you inserted yourself between another argument and, without intending to, kinda watered down your comrades point, was probably off putting. If it was a conversation between yourself and that person then I don’t know that you would’ve gotten the same response, but they probably were frustrated and felt kind of attacked
Alright. I can see what you mean with that. I’ll try to be more cognizant. I generally have trouble understanding situational awareness and tend to just comment whatever I’m thinking.
I feel you, it’s hard! I don’t think you deserved the snark, to be sure. It can be hard to be autistic and always have to feel like you’re walking on eggshells for NT people though so I get why you’d be frustrated over their response to you.
Kind of tangent: idk if you have this experience but I feel like it relates- I am always trying to think of arguments from all sides and I REALLY believe that people don’t like that lol. Like, I know where I stand and what I believe in, but I try to put myself in the shoes of my “enemy” or whatever to figure out how even from their perspective they are not benefiting themselves, much less any other party, so that just collapses their entire position as illogical. But when I frame things like that I think that freaks people out lol. And I think it makes me out to look more like a lib than I actually am
Yeah I know what you mean with that last part. I try to understand where libs are coming from and sometimes that can lead to my fellow leftists being offput.
I think I’m starting to understand why some people call it liberal. Obviously, the individual, disorganized actions of the half that bailed count for less than the official, enacted position of the bourgeois party.
I think it’s good that half bailed, and liberal detractors will naturally cling to this fact to maintain belief in the Democratic Party.
I think it’s worth mentioning, and then explaining why it doesn’t matter. One without the other runs the risk of enabling the
reformists.
Because it isn’t relevant to the original point which didn’t say ALL democrats gave a standing ovation, just that Democrats did. Half of the party not being there is just a cop out and nitpicking. They weren’t absent because they’re vocally opposed, they just weren’t there so that ‘fact’ doesn’t change anything.
say ALL democrats gave a standing ovation, just that Democrats did.
“The Democrats” to me implies all, but I can see how this would have been a misunderstanding.
They weren’t absent because they’re vocally opposed, they just weren’t there so that ‘fact’ doesn’t change anything.
Most of them did make an official anouncement of why they werent attending. I saw a bunch of them on, of all places, Chen “lifetime removed” Weihua’s account. I just wasnt really that impressed with the specific rhetoric and reasons they used, as I mentioned in that reply in the screenshot.
“The Democrats” to me implies all, but I can see how this would have been a misunderstanding.
This kind of reminds me of when someone says, “not all men” in response to criticism of “men” as a whole in feminist or women-centered spaces. (For example: “Not all men are paid more than women.” Like, no, not every literal man receives higher pay than women, but it’s common enough that it’s a systemic issue).
Let me disclaim that I’m not saying that you would have that same kind of reaction to that statement, just that it’s unnecessarily splitting hairs and kind of missing the point of the original argument. The statement that “The Dems” gave Bibi a standing ovation is factually true, and is indicative of the general opinion and behavior of the Democratic party as supporters and enablers of Israel’s atrocities.
I’m autistic too, and it sucks that we tend to interpret things literally and can sometimes miss the intended subtext when someone makes a statement. Hope what I’m saying makes sense and doesn’t come across as criticism!
I can see what you mean by that comparison.
Hmm. Perhaps I’m missing context here but I’m kinda not sure why your point needed to be made in the context of their conversation and why it could be seen as annoying/a refutation of kieselghurs point from their perspective.
for someone making a point to a lib to have these hairs split, in this context, at this time, seems like a defense of Democrats at worst (i know you did not mean this) and a petty caveat at best. Again, this is me vibe ridin’.
Unless kieselguhr was expressly saying or implying every Democrat clapped, rather than what i see implied: refutation of the widespread libworm that Trump would somehow be worse for Palestine than the democrats, a significant, consequential portion of which just clapped like the dogs they are for a fucking monster. You know as well as i do the Democrats as a body are behind Israel. If that is indeed the point kieselguhr was making, that makes your information irrelevant and even unwanted.
I’m in shaky territory here, assuming their and your intentions. But isn’t that why you posted this, for tommy’s hot takes? Jokes aside, until they come themselves, shouldn’t you give your comrades the benefit of the doubt you yourself desire?
Maybe their intentions werent as harsh as you believe? Only one way to be sure on that, but my final take is in your pic i just see some standard fact-check nerdin’. No beefin, no strugglin’… i see this everyday here. Both your comment and theirs are fine imho
Anyway that’s my 2
, shouldn’t you give your comrades the benefit of the doubt you yourself desire?
I mean their response was explicitly a dunk, unless you mean I should have given their original post the benefit of the doubt. In which case yeah I can maybe see that looking back. But I still think some degree of understanding of why I would want to correct that would have been appreciated.
This is partially a RSD thing, I dont like responses like that becuase it makes me feel like shit. Like I did something wrong.
I did kinda skip the 2 pinnochio dunk in my analysis, and I’m sorry for that oversight. With that in mind “benefit of the doubt” just means give 'em the same allowance to fuck up (in this case an unwarranted emotional reaponse).
However even that “sage” advice falls flat in the case of RSD, which i don’t know much about but im guessing is like my dad telling me i should “just push thru cuz ive got nothing to be depressed about”.
Anyway Here’s a hug cuz you a real one and lemme reiterate the end of my last comment that i don’t think you did anything wrong, for what that’s worth.
Thanks comrade.
I think anything I’d have to say on this specific matter has already been said and addressed. I know being attacked like this can be unpleasant, but I think you made a constructive conversation out of the matter, here.
I’ll instead just say, as a long-term user with a couple alts, I’ve always really liked your posts. I admire your ability to take others’ points on board, and agree a lot with your points on accuracy being important and the dangers of users being quick-to-dunk. Thanks for being a consistently cool poster
I appreciate that a lot!
i mean, assuming you agree with the responses, what is the problem? The responses given to you are correct, maybe a lil snarky, but correct nonetheless. I don’t even think they were trying to insult you.
Im getting this feedback a lot so I think it came off as an insult because of my RSD.
No worries! That type of thing can happen to the best of us. Hope things work out better for you moving forward
We really should have an official rule of assuming good faith from fellow Hexbears.
I’m not a Hexbear so I suppose it doesn’t matter to me too much, but I strongly disagree with this. Anyone can make a Hexbear account, and a rule like this seems like it would be very easy for trolls to take advantage of. Plus, frankly, I really don’t think that just because some well-meaning progressive or whoever stumbles into making an account on Hexbear means they should be given even temporary immunity to being dunked on. Some (let’s be honest, many) people’s opinions deserve scorn. You could argue that the mods have the flexibility to enforce the rule as they see fit, but to me, that just seems to make it difficult to know if what you say is in line with the rule.
In regards to the rest of your post, I think I’m mostly in agreement with the_post_of_tom_joad. Still, I think this post is a good reminder to be more mindful of how we interact with people on here and how their comments might affect those they respond to, and I’ve seen you call out Hexbears for being a little too quick to pull the trigger on people before and upvoted you. I know I sometimes respond angrily to people here and later feel I went about it wrongly when I’ve calmed down.
Yeah I think my later “especially longstanding users” should be more like “specifically longstanding users”. Obviously we dont want to assume good faith from a new account lol.
For sure, sorry if my comment was focusing too much on something minor you said but I felt it was probably worth saying something
Arguably, that is what this whole thread is about lol
I think it’s fair to ask that comrades not make fun of you (or anyone) or get on your case for wanting accuracy and pointing it out when something is less than accurate - I’m not sure that’s what’s going on in your screenshot - but it is a fair request in general. However, I would also like to ask that you please try to avoid using pejoratives like “moron.” I know it’s not a hard rule or anything here, and I know it is not intended to be used in an ableist way (most of the time) but there still is a lot of ableism embedded in the insult “moron.” I think it’s just better if we can do our best to replace those sort of words in our vocabulary with ones that are just as much biting towards those that deserve it without doing splash damage on those who don’t.
In that very thread (which I think is sad that the whole post got removed, because it was shaping up to be quite a thorough and lively lib-smashing!) the lib that everyone was attempting to educate (with a surprising lack of PPB given their bad faith garbage), was using the term moron, and a comrade pointed out that it was an ableist term that they were using. I think that’s a legitimate ask. It also would have been more effective if other hexbears weren’t making the same mistake.
I don’t mean to hijack your thread to make a different request or to turn your own request back on you, but I feel like it’s actually a very similar thing having to do with respecting neurodivergent people.
I really don’t want to start this Discourse again, but calling someone “moron” is not ableist beyond the metric of “insulting someone’s lack of intelligence is ableist”. It genuinely does not matter that it has a long-dead association with phrenological bullshit, it does not even remotely read that way to a modern audience and is as ridiculous as calling “lowbrow comedy” and ableist way to describe Jackass. That association is not part of the language anymore, it is linguistically dead.
You are right that the lack of PPB was good, though
As someone who is neurodivergent and has worked with people that are more severely effected with developmental issues who frequently get called “morons” specifically because of their disabilities, I think you are way off base. Just because the ***ard slur was recent in common and casual use and still is to a large extent, that doesn’t make the use of it ok, or that it would be ok if we gave it a few more decades to become more fully ingrained in society.
I really don’t want to start this Discourse again
Then don’t.
Edit: And to be clear to anyone reading this, it’s not like I’m calling for the word to be banned on hexbear or even telling people not to use it. I was asking that comrades be more mindful of their use of it and recognize that when they do use it, it does do harm to many neurodivergent people who might be reading, the same way other slurs for them do. All I’m saying is that the respectful, thoughtful, and comradely thing to do would simply be to make an effort to replace it with less splash-damaging terms in your vocabulary when you are able to do so. Because again, there are people with disabilities who feel hurt by its casual use.
Just because the ***ard slur was recent in common and casual use and still is to a large extent, that doesn’t make the use of it ok,
It’s not okay because of the association, which does indeed mean
it would be ok [in the future] if we gave it a few more decades to become more fully ingrained in society.
Though that is certainly not what I would recommend compared to the much more reasonable solution of “stop calling people that for any reason”.
This all having been said, my caveat is in the earlier comment was very important, because this sounds like it has gotten very much into “mocking someone’s intelligence is ableist”, which is probably true but is worth clarifying because I have to assume that those people you work with have been called every other slang word for “unintelligent” that was within their bullies’ productive vocabularies. That seems to be very much about how the term is used and disconnecting from any sort of etymological trivia. Surely they were also called “idiot”, and to explain the real meaning of how that it ableist, we would really be getting distracted if we started talking about “idiot savants” and such, despite that being a much more living term than literally any phrenological jargon.
Doesn’t it seem kind of tailist to not ban these terms?
So, you’re saying it’s not ableist to insult someone because you seem them to have lower intelligence? What do you think intelligence is if not an “ability”? Insulting someone because of your perception of their intelligence is literally insulting them on the basis of their perceived ability and therefore assigning them a social value based on ability. It has nothing to do with phrenology. Intelligence is like mobility, it’s a capability of the human animal and each person has that ability to varying degrees. The degree to which they exhibit the ability should not be the basis for distributing or withholding respect.
this sounds like it has gotten very much into “mocking someone’s intelligence is ableist”, which is probably true but is worth clarifying
Is it probably true or is it true? Is this not valid territory to be in? Let’s consider it clarified - terms like moron, idiot, even calling someone stupid, are examples of ableism.
It’s not okay because of the association, which does indeed mean
Did you not finish the sentence there? Both the ***ard term and “moron” mean essentially the same thing.
it would be ok [in the future] if we gave it a few more decades to become more fully ingrained in society.
Though that is certainly not what I would recommend compared to the much more reasonable solution of “stop calling people that for any reason”.
The fuck? Are you trying to quote me out of context or did you really not understand me? I was saying it still would not be ok even if the ***ard slur were given a few more decades to become more ingrained, which it was well on its way to becoming when efforts were made to point out the harmfulness of its use.
The rest of your comment is mostly just
pedantry. “Idiot” absolutely was and is used in an intentionally derogatory way, but most people, even those with developmental disabilities like those I mentioned, do not feel like the use of that word is a slur against them. (If they did, then I would make the same recommendations for it as I did “moron.”) Yes, they also, some of them, had been called, let’s use as an example “shit-for-brains.” But if someone casually used “shit-for-brains” directed elsewhere but in conversation around them, they didn’t have the same gut-punch reaction because they intuitively knew the phrase didn’t have the same kind of history in specifically ridiculing and demeaning people like them.Take “removed” as a similar example. We (here) have made an effort not to use that term because of its misogynist connotations. But what about the countless instances it was and is used in situations completely devoid of those connotations? “Man, life is a removed and then you die.” “They’re just removed about the TV being too loud.” And on and on. “removed” being used ubiquitously in circumstances where it is not at all being directed at women or as a way to emasculate someone is still looked down upon here for reasons I hope are obvious, reasons that I would have hoped regular posters here would recognize as being the same reasons why it would be good to advocate for replacing “moron” in our collective vocabulary. I don’t go around policing people every time the say something like “oh wow, removedin’!” but at the same time, especially in spaces that are ostensibly sensitive to culturally ingrained sexism, racism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia, etc., I have an expectation that people recognize the history and the fact that it low-key does make many women uncomfortable and they would be doing a net good to make an attempt not to say that.
Basically, it comes down to the feelings and opinions of the group who has been oppressed and is still stigmatized. How do people of color feel about each of the many terms historically used to describe them? Are some of those terms better than others, on a spectrum of acceptability and also dependent on who uses them? Is there a significant portion of women who feel that the word “removed” is too deeply entwined with misogyny to be salvaged despite it’s ubiquitous innocently-intended use and does its use make them uncomfortable? Are people who suffer from developmental disabilities made uncomfortable by the casual use of “idiot”? The ones I’ve known were not, but all of them, every single one I talked to about it, got upset by people calling others morons, specifically because of the way the word had been used against them. Even the ones who would not have been able to articulate an understanding of the history of how the word was used still had an intuitive sense of how it had been. Personally, I am with them and would always stand in solidarity next to them against the people who simply can’t make the slightest effort to try to use another word when they notice themselves calling someone a “moron.”
Also, I thought you didn’t want to get into this discourse.
edit: autismdragon, I didn’t mean for your post’s thread to get derailed like this, I apologize that it did.
I should have used a colon or something to mark it, but both of the main things you are baffled by, which you will notice are consecutive, come from an understandable misreading. The quoted part completes the earlier sentence and is not meant to represent your view but refer back to it as a [modified] version of a thesis that you raised to refute. Moving on:
The rest of your comment is mostly just
pedantry.Do you want to take bets on whether the person whose thread we’re hijacking thinks that statement and especially the caricature used is ableist? I thought the point of the thread is that some of us do get hung up on what others trivialize as insignificant details and we shouldn’t just mock that?
most people, even those with developmental disabilities like those I mentioned, do not feel like the use of [idiot] is a slur against them.
Why? I suppose in a way I should thank you for the honesty since that’s a mark against using etymology given, again, “idiot savant” being a demonstration in common reference of “idiot” being used very much as a slur to cast people of a certain group as subhuman, but I’m curious about what leads the average bigot to pick “moron” with such consistency over the many other words we have with the same denotations.
I do think you’re undercutting the way that “removed” to mean “complain” has emasculating connotations and is therefore still very sexist.
Otherwise, I think that there’s a norm-establishing problem here, because a lot of these matters are incidents of language use and not broadly-established slurs, so they are going to be localized to some extent, so it doesn’t make sense to go in swinging, as we saw in that one thread, saying “that’s ableist language” to someone from some other instance speaking offhand, because you don’t know what their frame of reference or their intention is. You can and should still enforce norms on everyone, but it should probably be couched in the language you used to explain the root of the matter to me just now, that some people feel a certain way about X word. Anyway, that’s all I have to say.
Both the ***ard term and “moron” mean essentially the same thing.
c’mon, lol
They do though.
No youre very right, I’ll try to watch that thank you.
fwiw i agree with you, it doesnt take that much effort to modify your speech to plug up any possible ‘gotchas’. you can say it ‘doesn’t matter’ but imo it absolutely does, little errors like that absolutely make some level of difference to someone’s credibility.
This is why sourcing your claims is so important. People need to be able to discern what is real and what is not.
Also please don’t dunk on Autism dragon for being scaly and reptilian. If I catch anyone doing this there will be consequences.
I don’t even understand the 2 Pinnochios line. I agree though, being accurate and truthful is always right, but I will say Kieselguhr didn’t say every single Democrat.
That’s being a little semantic, but I don’t think anyone was trying to dunk on you, just the Democrats.
The Pinocchios line comes from a WaPo writer who would rate how misleading a statement was by rewarding it 1-4 Pinocchios lol. The less factual a statement was, the more Pinocchios it would receive. I think the guys on Chapo parody that sometimes.
From your source:
Roughly 100 House Democrats and 28 Senate Democrats were present in the chamber for the Israeli prime minister’s speech, meaning around half of both caucuses were absent.
There are 213 House Democrats and 47 Senate Democrats total, meaning 46.94% of House Democrats and 59.57% of Senate Democrats were at the speech based on their numbers. If you just lump the two together, you get 128/260 or 49.23%, barely squeaking by with a minority and we’re going by a rough count, meaning it’s quite possible a real count would push the actual number into a slim majority. The problem is that this assumes a house representative and a senator should have equal weight, which is not true at all within the context of US electoral politics. The conventional wisdom is that senators are more senior and “greater” than representatives, so they carry more weight relative to house representatives. And as a final point, I only found a single source (ie your source) that tried counting who actually attended the speech. Most MSM, for obvious reasons, gloss over the total count. As far as I am aware, there’s no authoritative list of the actual people in attendance. I found a list of the boycotters here, which gives a much smaller number but is actually a list of people instead of a general vague number.
Overall, I don’t find your objections justifiable. In all likelihood, a majority of Democrats, both House and Senate, did in fact attend his speech, and once you have a majority of X doing Y, you can just say X did Y. You don’t really need to qualify that statement.
deleted by creator
Understood.
