Yeah see that's where your wrong. When I see something that need contextualization, I do that. I contextualize. Bc even if it's talking to a brick wall, other people are watching. And I'm at heart an eternal optimist. And maybe there's an outside chance I'll get through.
-
-
Replying to @Lecteronthelam
but you didn't do that until multiple replies in. before that it was 'insult, snarky summarisation, accusation that my entire post was pointless and stating the obvious.' if that's what contextualisation looks like to you, your setup needs work
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Lecteronthelam
so listen. I have other stuff to do, but I have two sincere questions for you before I log off. would you be willing to answer them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows
I can't say yes before I know what they are but I'm game.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Lecteronthelam
one: if someone wrote a detailed post about a specific aspect of racism that mentioned, as part of the setup and conclusion, that white people are racist, would you want them to contextualise by adding "not all white people?"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows @Lecteronthelam
two: do you believe that the majority of people referred to as antis are not actually antis (in the sense of being either self-professed or in denial about how closely their views align with those of self-professed antis)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows
that's an empirical question depending on how you define antis. if you define it as most proshippers profess to as people who harass others over ships - HARASS others OVER SHIPS, i think there are fewer of them than people labeled "antis" by others. Does that mean I think -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Lecteronthelam @fozmeadows
that their harassment is excusable or negligible? No. It doesn't. It means that I think that the whole concept is fubar and broken and we should just call bad actors out based on what they do rather than some "ideology" we ascribe to them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Lecteronthelam
thank you; I see where you're coming from, but my personal experience is that 'anti' is a term widely embraced by a number of people regardless of whether they harass or not, with a coherent enough MO to be applied to others who share that MO even if they don't harass, either.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
harassment is the extreme end of anti behaviour, and also the most pernicious. but the people who self-profess to be antis tend to have a very clear set of Things In Fandom They Think Are Morally Wrong and will argue that point openly, which is what I addressed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.