Re: Disabled In Socialist Countries
The only reason I'm bringing it up is because I find that it's relevant in this case. I'd like to know the other times I've pointed out that ban. I believe the only times I've ever mentioned it before are when someone else has tried suggesting it wasn't merited. I believe it was. That's as far as it goes. I don't have a problem with it. It happened and it's done, and it's not a black mark. It just means when you start talking about how I'm tromping around and amping up things and whatnot, I find it rather ironic. The most charitable thing I can say is that you might have been trying to say "don't do what I've done before you", but that doesn't appear to be the issue.
The issue, as I see it, is double standards.
You bring up the "same old rhetoric"? Well okay, here's some samey rhetoric for you. It's called tone policing.
When people on the right get tired of science, logical discourse and reason, they usually resort to telling those of us on the left that we're being too loud, too pushy. Some of us really are, and I hear that, and I'm right with you. Your threshold is obviously different from mine, and I can respect that, but please understand that I have heard this argument levelled at the left so many times that it's lost nearly all of its meaning. My default position on it now is to dismiss it as tone policing, rather than to honour it as a valid viewpoint. It is a tactic often used by any group, or individual within a group, in order to try and rob their opposition's words of their impact.
Imagine how it would feel if on many occasions, you felt like you were making great points, yet all anyone ever seemed to focus on is "you're too angry", or "you're too loud", or "You're too righteous". And maybe on occasion you were one or even all of those things. Sure, it happens. But if you keep getting that flag thrown, it usually -doesn't mean you're responsible. It usually means your opponent would rather attack you and force you to defend yourself on contestable grounds than interact with the meaningful things you said.
I'll be direct. Consider this my last defense of the tone-policing argument, until or unless I really and truly go off the high side. I'm not perfect, and I know I have overstepped before, so this is by no means a blanket protection against any future wrongdoing. It simply means that this argument, in specific, the tone argument, is something I will not honour without a very, very good reason from here on out. If you want to argue other points of rhetoric with respect, I can do that. If you want to ignore them, I can do that too. I won't chase you. I won't try and force you into anything. But what I also won't do is continue to fight your fight. If this must be a contest, then I get to choose the terms of gngagement, at least on my side, just as you do on yours.
From now on, I'm going to kindly ask all and sundry to remember that, while my accreditation does not by any means make me infallible, it does mean I have some ground to stand on here. If you wouldn't argue law with a lawyer, or you wouldn't argue arrest procedure with a cop, then don't argue social policy with a social worker. Or, if you must do these things, remember to attempt to do it with respect for the individual against whom you have chosen to pit yourself. I promise to do likewise.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
