Care to elaborate on that? Because it sounds like you’re about to do exactly that. Because last I checked one side is slaughtering thousands of children per day and the other has inflicted next to zero civilian casualties. So no it isnt tragic on “both sides”.
Does it? I assure you that’s entirely unintentional.
Was it because I prefaced what I said with “its not the worst thing in the world”? Because by that I was just trying to diminish my complain to show that I realise how in the grand scheme of things its just a minor thing.
Apart from that, I’m not sure what I could elaborate on.
What else does it make you? The two sides are fundamentally different. On the Israeli side they have the luxury of being able to just leave. All Iraeli casualties are their own or their parents or the Israeli state’s fault. This is one of the most clear cut cases of there being only one side that deserves any support, consideration or sympathy of any kind. So again would you care to elaborate what you meant?
Because this is in the context of one of the biggest pop stars in the world lamenting the tragedy on “both sides” of a fucking genocide. In what possible world is that not sickening equivocation? Why would you even comment that in this context?
this absolute insistence that mentioning “both sides” makes you some kind of enlightened centrist that is somehow above the issue being discussed, it really pisses me off.
So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?
When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I’ll try to rephrase it so that it’s not confusing.
People who insist on mentioning “both sides”, like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.
If this makes more sense, I’ll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.
The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, “insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist” implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn’t the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that “mentioning both sides makes you some kind of” implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.
I think actually the issue here might be that you didn’t realize that in this space, calling someone an “enlightened centrist” is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker
Care to elaborate on that? Because it sounds like you’re about to do exactly that. Because last I checked one side is slaughtering thousands of children per day and the other has inflicted next to zero civilian casualties. So no it isnt tragic on “both sides”.
Does it? I assure you that’s entirely unintentional.
Was it because I prefaced what I said with “its not the worst thing in the world”? Because by that I was just trying to diminish my complain to show that I realise how in the grand scheme of things its just a minor thing.
Apart from that, I’m not sure what I could elaborate on.
What else does it make you? The two sides are fundamentally different. On the Israeli side they have the luxury of being able to just leave. All Iraeli casualties are their own or their parents or the Israeli state’s fault. This is one of the most clear cut cases of there being only one side that deserves any support, consideration or sympathy of any kind. So again would you care to elaborate what you meant?
Because this is in the context of one of the biggest pop stars in the world lamenting the tragedy on “both sides” of a fucking genocide. In what possible world is that not sickening equivocation? Why would you even comment that in this context?
That’s entirely what I meant. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear, but it was my intention to point exactly that very thing out.
So to paraphrase, my whole post was me trying to say “If you believe it’s necessary to mention both sides at a time like this, fuck you”.
So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?
When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I’ll try to rephrase it so that it’s not confusing.
People who insist on mentioning “both sides”, like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.
If this makes more sense, I’ll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.
Yeah idk I thought you were fine too, sorry your phrasing wasn’t good enough for them
The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, “insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist” implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn’t the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that “mentioning both sides makes you some kind of” implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.
I think I understand where the structural issue was. I’ve edited the original post to reflect that. Thanks for sticking around to help me iron it out.
I think actually the issue here might be that you didn’t realize that in this space, calling someone an “enlightened centrist” is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker