The original post didn’t claim to have awareness of itself. So it’s left as an exercise to the reader to slot themselves in and create that interpretation.
It’s a different style to appeal to one side.
A different style to appeal the second side.
A different style to appeal to one side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to the second side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to neutrality.
A different style to appeal to neutrality and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally”.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it and get it wrong.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all. In a neutral frame while still being useful to the earlier 10 stances.
Trouble is, the further up this tree that one climbs, the cloudier it is to see clarity from gibberish.
I am disturbed by this comment. It seems like you are interpreting the post as doing coalitional politics and ignoring the descriptive content. The fact that descriptive statements about power dynamics automatically get interpreted as doing coalitional politics is the whole issue here.
If this goes too far then all words will be interpreted as violence and we will no longer be able to talk ourselves out of this mess because such talking would itself be interpreted as violence; everything would degenerate into an unproductive and destructive mess of zero-sum conflict. I am actually really worried about this happening and want to strongly push back against it.
Notice that I didn’t claim to be one side or another. I didn’t even claim to be critical or uncritical of the post. Or claim which level the post was on. And there are more levels above.
Also everyone is always playing on many levels. But also we trust and take charitably each other’s ideas. Without that trust we really do live in zero safety world.
The original post didn’t claim to have awareness of itself. So it’s left as an exercise to the reader to slot themselves in and create that interpretation.
It’s a different style to appeal to one side.
A different style to appeal the second side.
A different style to appeal to one side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to the second side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to neutrality.
A different style to appeal to neutrality and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally”.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it and get it wrong.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all. In a neutral frame while still being useful to the earlier 10 stances.
Trouble is, the further up this tree that one climbs, the cloudier it is to see clarity from gibberish.
I am disturbed by this comment. It seems like you are interpreting the post as doing coalitional politics and ignoring the descriptive content. The fact that descriptive statements about power dynamics automatically get interpreted as doing coalitional politics is the whole issue here.
If this goes too far then all words will be interpreted as violence and we will no longer be able to talk ourselves out of this mess because such talking would itself be interpreted as violence; everything would degenerate into an unproductive and destructive mess of zero-sum conflict. I am actually really worried about this happening and want to strongly push back against it.
Notice that I didn’t claim to be one side or another. I didn’t even claim to be critical or uncritical of the post. Or claim which level the post was on. And there are more levels above.
Also everyone is always playing on many levels. But also we trust and take charitably each other’s ideas. Without that trust we really do live in zero safety world.