Very well. Any future comment you make about my beliefs on this topic must now include the quote, “I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.”
After all, wouldn’t it be deceptive to leave out my clarification that I have respect for women and never use obectifying language? I mean, I said it with a straight face, and everything! Don’t people deserve to hear the full story?
“It’s not the speeches you can deliver, it’s whether you can deliver on the speeches.”—paraphrase of a cheesy Hillary Clinton quote
You’re being ridiculous. Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said. It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said.
And my point is that her disavowal (did I use too obscure of a word?) of that belief counts for nothing, when the rest of her actions say the opposite. That was the whole point of my comment about how people can say whatever they way, but that doesn’t make it true. And truth was the issue, not what someone can assert in a sheepish backpedal.
It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
No, it’s like if I wrote book saying, “It would be much better if America didn’t have any blacks. Lynchings of blacks are, in a philosophical sense, an act of liberation.”
And then rumors went around saying that I think blanks should be lynched, and I responded to them by saying,
“Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea. Of couse, I wouldn’t advocate lynching blacks. But we have to remember the need for racial purity.”
And then someone posting on Less Wrong, that hey, SB’s views weren’t really misrepresented, because look at what he said even when defending himself, “Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea …”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
You’re misreading me as well. I’m no fan of Dworkin, and it’s very clear that “all sex is rape” certainly sounds like the sort of thing she’d say (I’d make the same case for MacKinnon). I pointed out that leaving out her clarification was deceptive. It was a paradigmatic example of taking a quote out of context. Perhaps my wording was a bit strong in this comment when I said:
You seriously don’t think “All sex is rape” would therefore be a misinterpretation of what Dworkin said?
But it is very clear that you were not even attempting to read her charitably, nor give other people the chance to do so, by leaving out relevant context.
Very well. Any future comment you make about my beliefs on this topic must now include the quote, “I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.”
After all, wouldn’t it be deceptive to leave out my clarification that I have respect for women and never use obectifying language? I mean, I said it with a straight face, and everything! Don’t people deserve to hear the full story?
“It’s not the speeches you can deliver, it’s whether you can deliver on the speeches.”—paraphrase of a cheesy Hillary Clinton quote
You’re being ridiculous. Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said. It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
And my point is that her disavowal (did I use too obscure of a word?) of that belief counts for nothing, when the rest of her actions say the opposite. That was the whole point of my comment about how people can say whatever they way, but that doesn’t make it true. And truth was the issue, not what someone can assert in a sheepish backpedal.
No, it’s like if I wrote book saying, “It would be much better if America didn’t have any blacks. Lynchings of blacks are, in a philosophical sense, an act of liberation.”
And then rumors went around saying that I think blanks should be lynched, and I responded to them by saying,
“Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea. Of couse, I wouldn’t advocate lynching blacks. But we have to remember the need for racial purity.”
And then someone posting on Less Wrong, that hey, SB’s views weren’t really misrepresented, because look at what he said even when defending himself, “Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea …”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
You’re misreading me as well. I’m no fan of Dworkin, and it’s very clear that “all sex is rape” certainly sounds like the sort of thing she’d say (I’d make the same case for MacKinnon). I pointed out that leaving out her clarification was deceptive. It was a paradigmatic example of taking a quote out of context. Perhaps my wording was a bit strong in this comment when I said:
But it is very clear that you were not even attempting to read her charitably, nor give other people the chance to do so, by leaving out relevant context.