Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
May I recommend sourcing the continued hypocrisy of those who preach nuance and conflate any position that has logically deemed the required nuance to be irrelevant or low with a complete inability to even recognise it in the first place, as a source of joy? It makes days brighter, and pushes that pesky need for world destruction further and further away.
“This requires nuance! If you disagree, you’re just unable to see it!” is just such a beautifully nuanced position in itself.
|
There are two possibilities here.
First, you and Psycnet think that the people in this thread who have expressed concerns about whether there will be unforeseen and unintended consequences to the way people pursue personal relationships as a result of current trends are really just concerned that they suddenly have to be "be considerate of their actions, words and intentions", rather than not bother. Even though they didn't use "that specific phrasing", all of the "complaining, woeing, and dreading" exposes this underlying issue. Accordingly, those complaints are really about not being allowed to be inconsiderate, and all of the consequences of this current "thing", whether you call it a social movement or a moral panic, are "only good".
If that's what you think, then I was right in calling you ideologues who refuse to acknowledge or appreciate nuance.
The other possibility is that you knew full well that that wasn't the concern raised by other posters, and chose to ignore their expressed intent and instead constructed a misleading caricature of them. In which case, you're still an ideologue, but you'd also have to be a complete and utter prick. I chose to assume that not to be the case, despite the usual self-satisfied tone you took in your sarcastic "Hah totally bro" sign-on to Psycnet's. If you're saying I was wrong and it was door #2, though, I'll take your word for it.
Either way, still rooting for that asteroid.