So I'm worried that this post is going to seem like I'm trying to stick it to you after we had it out in IRC. I'm genuinely not trying to at all. But, you know, you attack my character a lot; I'm only trying to demonstrate that I'm absolutely having this conversation in good faith. It's 100% possible that I'm the one responsible for the miscommunication and subsequent misunderstanding, and if it's on me, then by all means attack my intelligence, writing, whatever. I can have a conversation with someone who thinks I'm stupid; but, I don't anymore want to have a conversation with someone who denies the possibility of my opinions even existing as anything other than a joke to affect anger. And frankly, I enjoy arguing with you on (in?) the fora in literally every other aspect.
And, totally fair enough, I got it all started again with the gag about your response being "dishonest." It wasn't dishonest, but that was meant to be the joke. I really did mean it lightheartedly (same for the 'magnanimous' bit). Interwebs humor failure.
PP's response is remarkably far afield from Tausami's question (was it...dare I say it...intellectually dishonest?!?!?!). Precisely the thing Tausami and others are trying to understand is why y'all are conflating voluntary marketing practices with constitutional free speech issues.
SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same (varying in extent, perhaps)
Also you are a dick and are stupider as fuck [this wasn't in the original IRC quote, obviously]
Here's how I think this conversation could have gone down, and it would have saved us both some time. Your original post tells me that I'm inaccurately speaking for you, but it doesn't say how, so it just ends up confusing everything. Most importantly, because I see those two particular issues as separate, it isn't obvious to me that you don't. I probably should have surmised it from our previous argument about authoritarianism, but at the time it didn't occur to me.
And I'm asking why those two things are being conflated.
And I'm answering: They're not being conflated. You fabricated that.
Here you outright accuse me of making things up. Compare your statement on the matter to the definition of conflate:
1. SexWarrior: I wasn't particularly fussed if we're talking legal restrictions or companies hopping on the social justice bandwagon, because I think the negative effects are more or less the same
2. con·flate: combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
"the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues"
synonyms: mix, blend, fuse, unite, integrate
We don't have to agree on whether or not your conflation is legitimate. Perhaps I'm wrong and it is. But surely you can admit that you are taking two things that are different, at least superficially (a legal ban vs. what you describe as a de facto ban), and "combining them into one." Be real with me now: what's the deception I'm pulling? What am I fabricating? How am I not accurately describing your argument?
Given that Confederate flag sales are soaring in response to the ban, and that they weren't low at all when the ban came into effect, your argument is based on an assumption that directly contradicts current events. People want to buy the flags. It's just that they can't, because there's a de facto ban in place.
But yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just that your hypothetical world is not this world.
They do, however, happily sell swastika cakes and ISIS flag cakes. Just not Confederate cakes.
This isn't part of the other stuff; it's just a regular argument: Yes, in your hypothetical world, you would be correct. It's just at your hypothetical world in which one can't buy a confederate flag is not this world. How can a world in which confederate flag sales are "soaring" represent a de facto ban? I'm being totally genuine here: PM me a mailing address for you and I 100% promise to buy and ship a confederate flag to you ASAP.
http://www.proudrebel.com/rebel/reblflag.htmhttp://dixierepublic.com/ [this place has sold so many flags recently that they've stopping taking orders]
You get the idea. Not to mention that you can have them made on demand by any print shop. You can get shirts made online, bumper stickers, decals, anything.
It seems at least a little arrogant to suggest that you know how to maximize the revenue of their multi-billion dollar corporation more effectively than the executives of that corporation.
rofl. Look at yourself. This is how desperate you are right now.
ar·ro·gant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
I mean, unless Rooster has some experience managing a corporation, let alone a corporation the size of Apple, then yeah, it seems like she has an exaggerated sense of her own ability to effectively manage a corporation the size of Apple. I'm only saying that it seems...possible, let's say...that Apple is making business decisions based on what it perceives to be in the best interests of Apple. Omg so desperate.
Poll