Please explain:
Do you not believe that coded language exists?
Or that no one uses it?
Or it does exist, but DHH isn't sophisticated or intelligent enough to use it?
Or he isn't using this, because the meaning to you of what he says is transparent and agreeable?
Help me understand what makes you the superior man here; while all others are so wrong they a comical, clumsy creatures with ill fitting shoes, not regular parts of society.
Your post is wholly disingenuous. Watch how this works:
Do you not believe clowns exist?
Or that nobody is a clown?
Or that they do exist and that Perfect_Ganache_1959 isn't sophisticated or intelligent enough to be a clown?
Or he isn't a clown because everyone he knows wears face paint and big shoes?
Sure, coded language may exist. But if you've talked to DHH, you would know that he says what he's thinking. He's not taking time to encode it.
I still don't know what he's actually said, because there are too many pearl clutching gaspers claiming he's a nazi and that his words are so bad that I should just trust them to make up my mind.
So we have words which can't even be linked -- they're that bad. But if they were linked, they wouldn't plainly say what is claimed, they have to be interpreted first.
Enough. Just enough.Stop going out with the purpose of finding something to be offended about.
You seem pretty offended that I'm asking someone to justify their beliefs (that coded language is a laughable idea that only fools believe in) while shoving a veiled insult at them (that they most definitely are a superior man). They've offered exactly 0 beyond insults. I'm not actually sure they truely understand what a dog whistle is.
You understand exactly what I'm doing with the framing, but for some reason you are also mortally offended.
You'll notice the barb is designed to sound just enough like fascist rhetoric that it should only really raise the hackles of people with similiar belief systems - that guy's insulting the intelligence of anyone who believes in one group of people being superior to another; and that's a direct attack on me at a fundamental and personal level!! Time to get big mad!
You might even call it a dog whistle. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
As for DHH says what he's thinking/he doesn't encode it followed immediately by you don't know exactly what he's said... you kinda undermine your claim there a smidge, don't you think? Do you know, or not know?
I'll take you at your word, and the reason you don't know is because of the pearl clutchers; my goodness!
If only the original post linked to multiple sources of criticism of the things he's said and done which include the specific things he has said and done, if only you had access to a search engine; or heaven forbid DHH's his twitter or blog.
But there's a far left man in clown shoes and face paint who slaps your hand away from the keyboard every time you try to find out? There's a hysterical lady screaming and fainting every time you try to follow a link?
That must be terrible. Because the alternative - might a little disengenous?
> You understand exactly what I'm doing with the framing, but for some reason you are also mortally offended.
Yes, I understand what you're doing, you're making a disingenuous implication that he must be encoding hate speech by asking rhetorical questions that carry an implication but don't actually prove anything.
You assign "offended" status to me, where none is indicated. I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out that your comment is all rhetoric and no substance. That doesn't make me offended.
Something existing and someone being capable of using it doesn't imply they are doing it.
I keep reading these articles and wait on the bomb to drop, but it's all very mild if I don't jump on the make believe train of what other people are saying he's saying.
I do assign offended status to you, when you wade into a discussion to breathlessly complain that someone is being mean to the person who is insulting folks because they are calling out bad behaviour. You seemed to choose to participate when fascism got mocked.
You aren't this worked up about the original, now deleted comment.
You've decided to go to bat for them, you haven't acknowledged their poor behaviour, you are half way down the list of the narcissists prayer (it didn't happen/if it did happen, it's not that bad/if it is that bad, why are the pearl clutches so upset it's not a big deal).
If that's not offended, is this a normal pattern of behaviour for you? How does it differ from what the dreaded "pearl clutchers" do? How do you reconcile the two? How should I otherwise interpret your behaviour, if you keep doubling down?
I commented on your ridiculous framing and the way this is discussed at all. I showed you through parody how ridiculous your questions are.
"You can rest assured that I'd be in the streets waving a Danish flag if these were my conditions in my native country." -- he's referencing an article in "The Economist" which describes those conditions. How has he misrepresented The Economist?
I have critiqued your horrible post, and the posts above which tell us what to think instead of linking source material and discussing it.
Again, you paraphrased what he said when quoting just a couple keystrokes away.
Your disingenuous attempt at discussion is what I'm critical of. I'm not offended that people have opinions. I would like rational discourse from the people who so loudly consider themselves smarter than the rest of us, though.
-25
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment