inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 11 months agoHey media, stop bullying women who refuse to marry Republicanswww.salon.comexternal-linkmessage-square207fedilinkarrow-up1718arrow-down137
arrow-up1681arrow-down1external-linkHey media, stop bullying women who refuse to marry Republicanswww.salon.cominclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 11 months agomessage-square207fedilink
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down54·11 months ago But then again what can you expect from conservatives who can only think in terms of binaries? The irony in this statement is subtle but quite delightful.
minus-squareLiz@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up32arrow-down1·11 months agoOnly if you consider the word “who” to not be a qualifier.
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down3·11 months agoI think I should have stated “whom” to remove the qualifier ambiguity. I hate using whom but in this case it was probably needed.
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down16·11 months agoThat’s a fair point. So you’re saying it can be taken in two different ways…
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down4·11 months agoOn review I think this is one of the few times that “whom” would be more appropriate.
minus-squareBreadstickNinja@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13·11 months agoNo, not even a little bit. “Who” is the subject of the relative clause. “Whom” would be completely incorrect.
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·11 months agoThank you for the clarification. I appreciate your help.
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down11·edit-211 months agoBecause I would only support religious education if it adhered to my viewpoint while claiming conservatives can only see binary viewpoints? Or because I have a binary view point of conservatives while at the same time levelling this against them? Both are ironic in some sense.
minus-square【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up19arrow-down1·edit-211 months agoConservatives are a monolith. If you don’t fall in line and do what the party wants, they attack you, primary you, and cast you out. This is how the Nazis got regular people to commit to atrocities.
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down2·11 months agoTell me you’ve never spent any time around conservatives without telling me you’ve never spent any time around conservatives. No, your immediate family doesn’t count.
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·11 months agoHowever I would counter with the point that those with a binary view point must be debated in like. How can I debate the grey with a person who cannot see it?
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down8·11 months agoYou realize that such a debate is impossible to win, right?
minus-squareTheLurker@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down1·edit-211 months agoWinning a debate should not be the goal. It should be to progress disclosure and help finding some resemblance of “truth”. Hence why I asked which of the two possible ironic statements I made you were asking about. I’m wrong all the time. But discourse helps us all to learn.
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down13·11 months agoMost enlightened Lemmy user I’ve met in a while.
minus-squareHikingVet@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up4·edit-211 months agoYou must have to make new accounts on the regular with that 18 hour old account.
minus-squareMacN'Cheezus@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down6·edit-211 months agoYou might say I have a talent for going straight where it hurts. “The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.” — Oscar Wilde
The irony in this statement is subtle but quite delightful.
Only if you consider the word “who” to not be a qualifier.
I think I should have stated “whom” to remove the qualifier ambiguity.
I hate using whom but in this case it was probably needed.
That’s a fair point.
So you’re saying it can be taken in two different ways…
On review I think this is one of the few times that “whom” would be more appropriate.
No, not even a little bit. “Who” is the subject of the relative clause. “Whom” would be completely incorrect.
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate your help.
Because I would only support religious education if it adhered to my viewpoint while claiming conservatives can only see binary viewpoints?
Or because I have a binary view point of conservatives while at the same time levelling this against them?
Both are ironic in some sense.
The latter
Conservatives are a monolith. If you don’t fall in line and do what the party wants, they attack you, primary you, and cast you out.
This is how the Nazis got regular people to commit to atrocities.
Tell me you’ve never spent any time around conservatives without telling me you’ve never spent any time around conservatives.
No, your immediate family doesn’t count.
However I would counter with the point that those with a binary view point must be debated in like.
How can I debate the grey with a person who cannot see it?
You realize that such a debate is impossible to win, right?
Winning a debate should not be the goal. It should be to progress disclosure and help finding some resemblance of “truth”.
Hence why I asked which of the two possible ironic statements I made you were asking about.
I’m wrong all the time. But discourse helps us all to learn.
Most enlightened Lemmy user I’ve met in a while.
You must have to make new accounts on the regular with that 18 hour old account.
You might say I have a talent for going straight where it hurts.
“The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.” — Oscar Wilde