[FRIAM] Forum abuse! (was Revising the American Revolution)

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

How is what I wrote ad hominem? Suggesting you modernists might be suckered into a narrative? Calling you a modernist? Is "modernist" an insult? I just don't get it. Sorry.

Re: what cannot be said - There are no sacred cows. Anything can be written. SteveG does step in to moderate, but rarely. The real argument isn't about what cannot be written. It's about the appropriateness of this forum, this type of forum, for some *styles* of writing. Email fora are not well-suited to chatting. For that, use Twitter, IRC, Discord, Slack, Zoom, group texts, etc. That's what they're designed for. Some fora like Instagram and TikTok also tolerate chatting nicely. But it's ideally for pictures or short videos. 

In this particular case, your "neener, neener, neener" meaning *might* have been clear to me had we been in a different type of forum, one suited to chatting. But this ain't it. And, in such a chat-friendly forum, it might also be more clear that my calling you a modernist was not an attack on your person ... though you may perceive it as such, I suppose.

Re: Frank's question of persons other than the participants reading these conversations - Let's ask the Eye of Sauron:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aredfish.com+thompson&client=firefox-b-1-e&sxsrf=AOaemvKCtwPlUCr4nkZpjQnEipMX_sWOoQ%3A1635362865987&ei=Mah5YZDiO9ja0PEPjPye6AU&ved=0ahUKEwjQvtK1qevzAhVYLTQIHQy-B10Q4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=site%3Aredfish.com+thompson&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABQ6RBY6RBg-BJoAXACeACAAYsBiAGLAZIBAzAuMZgBAKABAcgBAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz


On 10/27/21 10:39 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> On 10/26/21 12:55 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> Well, I'm not fluent enough to know how deeply social contract thinking had embedded itself in the people who *liked* the document at the time. But social contracts are only one, very debatable, construction for "inalienable rights". Just because it makes the most sense to you, doesn't mean it provides the solid foundation you're looking for. It looks more like postmodernist sand, to me. You modernists, who faithfully buy into Grand Narratives that fit your priors would be suckered in by it. But I don't.
>>
> … all packed and gussied up with its ad hominems.  All this is meant to be playful, and the moment it stops being fun, is the moment it should stop.  If I have brought us there, please accept my apologies and let’s let it go. 
> 
>  
> 
> All this is trivial compared to Glen’s suggestion that we have to be careful what we say here, not just because of possible hurts endured by one another (which I do care about) but because of who might be listening.  This is the second such suggestion from a person I deeply respect that has been offered me this week and I find it deeply concerning.   I am so used to the freedom that my professional obscurity conveys that I never worry about such reputational concerns.  Also, being an up-tight easterner, I am probably more self-canceling than many of you.  Finally, my die is already cast.  But */should I/* be listening to what I write with an Other Ear?  For your sakes, at least? 
> 
>  
> 
> I suggest we start another thread:  “What Cannot Be Said On Friam” and explore this matter carefully. 

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ