• Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I didn’t invent anything.

    Really?

    “it’s a totally useless term that can only be used as a dogwhistle.”

    This you?

    If you can’t see the strawmanning here, you’re one or more of unselfaware, unable to back down when you’re wrong, disingenuous or malicious.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      That’s not a strawman or an invention, it’s literally what the person was saying.

      Are you fixating on the fact that it wasn’t verbatim? Because I had to elucidate the subtext, since otherwise you’ll pretend subtext doesn’t exist.

      And there you go pretending subtext doesn’t exist. Amazing.

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        And there you go pretending context doesn’t exist. Amazing.

        That’s not a strawman or an invention, it’s literally what the person was saying.

        You and I clearly use the word literally very differently. I use it considerably more honestly and literally than you do.

        If you can’t see the strawmanning here, you’re one or more of unselfaware, unable to back down when you’re wrong, disingenuous or malicious.

        I’m leaning towards options (b) and © here.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You’re the one ignoring context.

          Also, you’re confusing “literal” with “verbatim.” A paraphrase doesn’t have to be verbatim to be literal, and likewise a quote can be verbatim without being literal.

          And you’re the one strawmanning.

          • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Like I say, you and I use the word “literally” very, very differently.

            When I say something like “they literally said it”, I mean that they actually said it. You know, that that was what they said. Literally.

            When you use that phrase, you mean “that’s how I interpreted it because I wanted to argue about it. All day.”

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              No, you’re using it incorrectly. You’re attempting to use it as meaning “verbatim.”

              It’s completely accurate to say “literally” while paraphrasing.

              And it wasn’t just my interpretation, it was the clear intended meaning as evidenced by later discussion when people insisted that sex has no meaningful use even in medical contexts.

              Get over yourself.

              • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                It’s completely accurate to say “literally” while paraphrasing.

                1. No is isn’t. Use words like “essentially” for that. “It’s literally what they said” is in fact a lie.
                2. Especially not when inventing a bunch of absolutism that wasn’t there and interpreting it with a whole bunch of extra, much easier to debunk nonsense that you added yourself.

                people insisted that sex has no meaningful use even in medical contexts.

                I didn’t see that in this thread. Oh, unless you’re meaning it “literally” with your version of the word “literally” which doesn’t man literally literally and for some reason includes absurd straw man content.