@Elfie @ic3l9 Well, thank you to prove that you don't understand what “respect” is (paying a salary, for instance, doesn't come from respecting a person, but from respecting a contract. There's no misrespect to the person in such an example). This, also, explain a lot.
But as you're still trying to come up with anything to evade the issue rather than facing it, I guess we won't go any further here. Stay as hateful as you want, I won't interfere more in it.
(Always open to discuss again if you change your mind some day.)
But as you're still trying to come up with anything to evade the issue rather than facing it, I guess we won't go any further here. Stay as hateful as you want, I won't interfere more in it.
(Always open to discuss again if you change your mind some day.)
@Elfie @ic3l9 Once again, I don't make any assumption about how you behave, either here or AFK, I just comment what you said.
And the problematic cliché is that being gay is something pejorative, which is exactly what “faggotry” means. Nothing more, nothing less. You still continuing to come up with any elucubration that can evade the issue won't change anything about it.
But, you point here an interresting difference between us: you think respect is something that have to be earned. I think respect is something due to everybody as a human being. This probably explain a lot of our disagreement here.
And the problematic cliché is that being gay is something pejorative, which is exactly what “faggotry” means. Nothing more, nothing less. You still continuing to come up with any elucubration that can evade the issue won't change anything about it.
But, you point here an interresting difference between us: you think respect is something that have to be earned. I think respect is something due to everybody as a human being. This probably explain a lot of our disagreement here.
@Khrys J'avais d'abord vu passer la news avec la formulation « formation à l'action non-violente ». Beh je trouve cette formulation nettement plus explicite : selon ce préfet, l'action non-violente est antirépublicaine. Parce que pour un préfet, la république ne peut et ne doit être que violente, Lallement n'a eu de cesse de nous le rappeler.
@Elfie @ic3l9 Well… as I already said before, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that the offense probably wasn't your intention. But it changes absolutely nothing to the fact that it was the result of your talking. And that's all about what I'm talking about.
BTW, it's interresting to see how you both need a lot of (wrong) assumptions to express your positions (that I'm using Mastodon, coming from Twitter, that I don't know about the fediverse's history, that I act differently online and AFK, that I'm coming nervous and angry…), while mine just depend on what you actually *said*, and not about what I'm guessing about you.
I just wanted to explain that it was a bad choice of word for a public intervention, as it insults a lot of people and contributes to spread very problematics clichés. And I was answering to that just because you didn't seem to understand, so I wanted to try again, as I may not always be clear.
Now, it's pretty obvious that the problem doesn't come from me, but from the fact you just don't care about the fact your words are insulting. So, ok, fine, assume them and continue to offend people, I'm no one to change that. And feel free to add any “last words” you want, as it looks like something important for you to notice (never understood that part). I just hope, like David did, you'll remember this conversation when you'll start being aware of the results of your talking.
BTW, it's interresting to see how you both need a lot of (wrong) assumptions to express your positions (that I'm using Mastodon, coming from Twitter, that I don't know about the fediverse's history, that I act differently online and AFK, that I'm coming nervous and angry…), while mine just depend on what you actually *said*, and not about what I'm guessing about you.
I just wanted to explain that it was a bad choice of word for a public intervention, as it insults a lot of people and contributes to spread very problematics clichés. And I was answering to that just because you didn't seem to understand, so I wanted to try again, as I may not always be clear.
Now, it's pretty obvious that the problem doesn't come from me, but from the fact you just don't care about the fact your words are insulting. So, ok, fine, assume them and continue to offend people, I'm no one to change that. And feel free to add any “last words” you want, as it looks like something important for you to notice (never understood that part). I just hope, like David did, you'll remember this conversation when you'll start being aware of the results of your talking.
@Clailou Pas de Panique, Prudence, et une Tasse de Thé ;-)
https://www.maitre-eolas.fr/post/2008/03/25/909-que-faire-quand-on-recoit-un-courrier-d-avocat
S'il s'agit d'un simple mail, ne pas répondre est le plus sage (mais retirez la photo si elle n'est effectivement pas légitime)
https://www.maitre-eolas.fr/post/2008/03/25/909-que-faire-quand-on-recoit-un-courrier-d-avocat
S'il s'agit d'un simple mail, ne pas répondre est le plus sage (mais retirez la photo si elle n'est effectivement pas légitime)
@ic3l9 Well, I was never on Twitter, so it would be hard for me to “go back” there. And I'm no speech police indeed. I'm just a careful random explaining why you're wrong to tell @davidrevoy he's wrong being offended.
Intentionally or not, Elfie's message was insulting. David feeled legitimally insulted, and lecturing him about that is just a bad move. Maybe you can't accept that, but you can't change it. So, mute and move on yourself, thanks.
Intentionally or not, Elfie's message was insulting. David feeled legitimally insulted, and lecturing him about that is just a bad move. Maybe you can't accept that, but you can't change it. So, mute and move on yourself, thanks.
@ic3l9 @davidrevoy Just to be clear. My point is: when you chose, in a public conversation, to use a term that is marked as offensive in every dictionaries, you just can't explain offended people they're wrong because you usually use it in specific contexts where they aren't, because you're obviously out of those contexts.
Mastodon's history is irrelevant here. What is relevant is how the people around you will understand your words. If those people are the whole fediverse users, then you just can't expect them to have learned your own ways to talk, and then if there's misunderstandings, the one to blame is you.
Mastodon's history is irrelevant here. What is relevant is how the people around you will understand your words. If those people are the whole fediverse users, then you just can't expect them to have learned your own ways to talk, and then if there's misunderstandings, the one to blame is you.
@ic3l9 @davidrevoy There do exists circles on the internet where anything means anything. That's not a way to justify any position while you're out of those circles.
What I was pointing is that “faggot” is, by default, a term aiming homosexuals in a pejorative way. It may probably be used in a friendly way *when there's no risk of misinterpretation between the people talking*. Which can't be the case when you're publicly talking to people you don't know.
Here, the use of “faggotry” both insults David's careness, and explain to all homosexual people reading it that they're still hated. It may not be what you or Elfie want to do, but it's *the way most people around here would read it*.
If you comes from circles in where insults are something friendly, well, I've nothing against that. But the one forgetting the whole Internet hasn't to accept specific codes here isn't David, it's you.
What I was pointing is that “faggot” is, by default, a term aiming homosexuals in a pejorative way. It may probably be used in a friendly way *when there's no risk of misinterpretation between the people talking*. Which can't be the case when you're publicly talking to people you don't know.
Here, the use of “faggotry” both insults David's careness, and explain to all homosexual people reading it that they're still hated. It may not be what you or Elfie want to do, but it's *the way most people around here would read it*.
If you comes from circles in where insults are something friendly, well, I've nothing against that. But the one forgetting the whole Internet hasn't to accept specific codes here isn't David, it's you.
@ic3l9 I would like to second @davidrevoy here. Just watch again at Elfie's message. It wasn't anything friendly at all. The one and only thing it was saying is that the CW is “pure faggotry” (and that the art is beautiful precisely to wrap the insult in kind words, which so doesn't fit your group delimitation, BTW.)
Choices of words matter. Calling something “faggotry”, especially when the said something is respect and careness, just can't be friendly at all, and isn't a way to express being legitimately offended. That's just a way to express you consider other people as trash.
Choices of words matter. Calling something “faggotry”, especially when the said something is respect and careness, just can't be friendly at all, and isn't a way to express being legitimately offended. That's just a way to express you consider other people as trash.
@Khrys @emmanuelc Et quand je suis des amis, vaut-il mieux me demander « où cours-je ? », ou décider que, de toute façon, j'irai où mes potes iront ?
@redfrog @mmu_man ♪♫ Tout l'monde en télétravail, pour pas qu'l'économie déraille !
https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=qbD6NYaBBhg
https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=qbD6NYaBBhg
@Khrys Je ne sais pas si la comparaison avec les terrains de tennis est la plus pertinente… Si on parlait en terrains de golf, ça les découragerait peut-être ?
@AugierLe42e Sur Bronner en général, je recommande la lecture de https://tranxen.fr/gerald-bronner-sociologue-de-lirrationnel/
OK, une vieille femme est morte et son fils hérite de sa fonction. Effectivement, il faudra veiller à ce que ce dernier ne fasse pas d'ingérence politique (surtout quand c'est très mal avisé).
Maintenant on peut passer à d'autres choses plus utiles ?
@MicroCheapFx @crowdagger J'n'ai rien suivi de l'état dans lequel elle est, mais je viens de voir, en allant sur ladite fiche Wikipédia, qu'elle n'en est qu'à deux ans du record du règne le plus long, actuellement détenu par Louis ⅩⅣ.
Du coup, je me dis que si elle pouvait tenir jusque là, ça ferait une bonne occasion de faire rager un peu les anglophobes nostalgiques de l'ancien régime, ce qui serait toujours ça de pris.
Du coup, je me dis que si elle pouvait tenir jusque là, ça ferait une bonne occasion de faire rager un peu les anglophobes nostalgiques de l'ancien régime, ce qui serait toujours ça de pris.
@AllanBarte @mmu_man Hm, ceci dit, 'faut peut-être affiner un peu la critique, ici. Autant, les numéros verts, bon, voilà, quoi ; autant, les consultations…
Disons qu'un·e élu·e ou membre du gouvernement qui, quel que soit le problème rencontré, lance une consultation, dans l'absolu, ce serait juste le truc normal à faire quand t'es censé représenter des gens. 'fin, dans l'idéal, il n'y aurait juste pas l'élu/membre du gouvernement dans l'équation et les gens se consulteraient eux-mêmes entre eux, mais ça ce serait si on était vraiment en démocratie ; tant qu'on reste sur un système représentatif, on ne peut pas reprocher aux représentant·e·s de prendre l'avis des gens qu'iels sont censé·e·s représenter.
Le vrai reproche à faire à Macron, pour le coup, ce n'est pas tant de lancer des consultations que de ne pas en tenir compte ensuite, ce que d'ailleurs tu illustres très bien sur l'image.
Disons qu'un·e élu·e ou membre du gouvernement qui, quel que soit le problème rencontré, lance une consultation, dans l'absolu, ce serait juste le truc normal à faire quand t'es censé représenter des gens. 'fin, dans l'idéal, il n'y aurait juste pas l'élu/membre du gouvernement dans l'équation et les gens se consulteraient eux-mêmes entre eux, mais ça ce serait si on était vraiment en démocratie ; tant qu'on reste sur un système représentatif, on ne peut pas reprocher aux représentant·e·s de prendre l'avis des gens qu'iels sont censé·e·s représenter.
Le vrai reproche à faire à Macron, pour le coup, ce n'est pas tant de lancer des consultations que de ne pas en tenir compte ensuite, ce que d'ailleurs tu illustres très bien sur l'image.
@Khrys @xalofar Pour être complètement honnête, l'évidence est parfois piégeuse, et je pense qu'en 1405, c'était une affirmation encore assez « risquée » au sens où je ne suis pas sûr qu'on ait été suffisamment calés sur les limites entre biologie et sociologie à l'époque pour pouvoir affirmer avec autant de certitude que la différence ne tenait que dans la façon d'éduquer les mômes.
Mais en l'état actuel de nos connaissances de deux domaines en question, oui, ça devrait être une connaissance de base pour tout le monde.
Mais en l'état actuel de nos connaissances de deux domaines en question, oui, ça devrait être une connaissance de base pour tout le monde.