Resolved: My discussing anything here has devolved into a matter of constantly having to correct people about what I said. If I were to say "the sun rises in the east," someone would surely try to insist I meant that the west is forever in the dark. If I were to say "selling raw milk should not be against the law," someone would eventually draw a comparison between allowing the sale of raw milk and allowing murder. If I were to say someone supports strictly restricting and controlling immigration, someone would try to claim what I really meant is that he wants a closed border.
I'm not saying anyone should make things easy for me. I just wish you all would give me credit for saying what I actually said, rather than this "must read between the lines" nonsense where you infer anything you goddamn please, and then assume and assert that I secretly meant to say whatever inference you have imagined.
I am not talking in code. I am not being obscure or esoteric or obfuscatory or enigmatic. I am (most of the time) trying to be tactful and polite (as best my limited skills in such things allow), but I am not hiding any secret meanings, insults, messages, accusations or codes in my sentences.
I am, however, getting really tired of having to correct people in every post.
For example, BT seems to think what I really meant was "But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear)." That is clearly not what I said. You have to really be trying to force your inferred meaning into my sentences to think that I said something like that.
Why should I bother explaining myself when anything I say is going to be only further fodder for this sort of thing? What is the point? You are not really paying attention to what I say because you're so goddamned busy trying to force my words into some preconceived notion of whatever the frak you think it is you think you're arguing against.
BT said, "the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit." In my reply, the first thing I said was "You're right." That is a statement of agreement with BT's assertion that supporting the enforcement of the laws on the book is not racism. I also said, "That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear." Going by BT's reply to that, he certainly seems to think my agreement with his statement is a lie. He equated "irrational prejudice and/or fear" with racism. If I had intended to express that it was racism, I would have said "racism". But that is not what I said. And racism is not the only form of irrational prejudice or irrational fear. And a lack of racism does not mean a lack of irrational prejudice. But BT apparently assumes that I cannot have meant anything other than racism.
How am I supposed to engage in a discussion with someone who seems to assume what I mean before I've even said it? Apparently, I don't ever need to say anything here. You all seem very willing and able to assume you know what I "really" mean, and so you argue against that rather than what I say. There are times when I wonder if some of the replies I get are meant for someone else because they seem so completely unrelated to what I said. CU4LG complains that discussing things with me is too difficult because I insist on trying to clearly pin down definitions of terms used. How can I not so insist when this sort thing goes on all the time?
Not that long ago, BT expressed a desire to improve the quality of posts here "by encouraging those who post on the issues and discouraging those who post on personalities." That is certainly a good idea. I submit that another thing to be done to improve the quality of posts, and discussions, here would be to encourage not assuming constantly that the other person is trying to sneak in hidden meanings in his statements. You know, a little trust that the other person meant to say what he said rather whatever you think he might mean. BT also expressed a desire to rebuild a sense of community here. I submit that a little more trust and a lot less of the "must read between the lines" would go along way towards that goal. There is a time to read between the lines, and there is a time to grasp that one's debate opponent is not a sneaky bastard trying to pull one over on you or secretly insult you in front of everyone.
