Yes ok then say that you are happy that slavery of black people has stopped and that you don’t care about any other form of slavery. < That’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…
that’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…
pfft that’s the most 13-year old racist edgelord shit I’ve heard in ages.
No, that’s not what that says, you silly twat, lol… ok so there’s this thing called context. And the context in which slavery was introduced, in this thread, was regarding the protagonist in the game going after slavery supporters.
AND YOU HAD TO FUCKIN’ CHIME IN BUT BUT NOT ALL SLAVES-
motherfucking couldn’t resist the urge. So answer the fucking question: what is it, inside you, that is so desperate that you need to reply with that specious bullshit?
TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RDR2, the history of the US, it’s referring to the human stain of racists enslaving black people for their entire lives, and the lives of their children in perpetuity. a very different thing compared to what irish indentured servants experienced.
The nice thing is that even population groups elsewhere on earth who never had anything to do with slavery condemn all slavery and also that it is good if slavery is generally ended.
Without differentiating whether black or white because slavery is to be despised whether black or white.
Do you think a black slave would have sought a difference to a white slave and vice versa? No…after all, both would have experienced the same fate…
It is those who are not affected who want to differentiate as if one slavery is worse than the other… those who are affected would not do that…
The issue is Grice’s “maxim of quantity”. It’s a linguistic model of how we speak to each other - we provide the appropriate amount of information, and no more. Providing a surplus of details “for context” immediately puts people on guard because it quite literally is suspicious.
Breaking the maxim of quantity in this way is like saying “asbestos-free cereal!” It’s a detail that wasn’t necessary for context, and so its inclusion seems intentionally designed to communicate some implicit information that we’re meant to understand.
No, you don’t need to say “all slavery is bad” when someone says “slavery is bad” because that was an unnecessary detail to add in context.
People don’t need to defend themselves to you and say “you’re right, indentured servitude and prison labor are bad, so white slavery is bad too” because they weren’t talking about those things. They were talking about slavery as it is protrayed in RDR2 and you seem to be trying to change the conversation.
Yes ok then say that you are happy that slavery of black people has stopped and that you don’t care about any other form of slavery. < That’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…
pfft that’s the most 13-year old racist edgelord shit I’ve heard in ages.
No, that’s not what that says, you silly twat, lol… ok so there’s this thing called context. And the context in which slavery was introduced, in this thread, was regarding the protagonist in the game going after slavery supporters.
AND YOU HAD TO FUCKIN’ CHIME IN BUT BUT NOT ALL SLAVES-
motherfucking couldn’t resist the urge. So answer the fucking question: what is it, inside you, that is so desperate that you need to reply with that specious bullshit?
TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RDR2, the history of the US, it’s referring to the human stain of racists enslaving black people for their entire lives, and the lives of their children in perpetuity. a very different thing compared to what irish indentured servants experienced.
The nice thing is that even population groups elsewhere on earth who never had anything to do with slavery condemn all slavery and also that it is good if slavery is generally ended. Without differentiating whether black or white because slavery is to be despised whether black or white. Do you think a black slave would have sought a difference to a white slave and vice versa? No…after all, both would have experienced the same fate… It is those who are not affected who want to differentiate as if one slavery is worse than the other… those who are affected would not do that…
The issue is Grice’s “maxim of quantity”. It’s a linguistic model of how we speak to each other - we provide the appropriate amount of information, and no more. Providing a surplus of details “for context” immediately puts people on guard because it quite literally is suspicious.
Breaking the maxim of quantity in this way is like saying “asbestos-free cereal!” It’s a detail that wasn’t necessary for context, and so its inclusion seems intentionally designed to communicate some implicit information that we’re meant to understand.
No, you don’t need to say “all slavery is bad” when someone says “slavery is bad” because that was an unnecessary detail to add in context.
People don’t need to defend themselves to you and say “you’re right, indentured servitude and prison labor are bad, so white slavery is bad too” because they weren’t talking about those things. They were talking about slavery as it is protrayed in RDR2 and you seem to be trying to change the conversation.