6 ms·

> but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious It's extremely difficult to see how the statement quoted below is not fairly characterized a

> but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious It's extremely difficult to see how the statement quoted below is not fairly characterized as malicious >The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens. If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?

SpaceNugget 3mo ago
You seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body. The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission. Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.
- walletdrainer 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - SpaceNugget 3mo ago
    > Why are you attributing this to me Because you wrote: > If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious? in response to: > The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens. Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy. Which is something the statement you are replying to clearly doesn't agree with. And rather than accept that there is a disagreement of the purpose of the council or the acceptability of industry lobbyists influencing law or what not, you just frame it as a moral evil (maliciousness) on the part of the other commenter. A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations. Side note: if your comment implies something hard enough (intentionally or not) that multiple people are "windmill-tilting" against something that you think you aren't saying, it deserves some reflection on whether you may have miscommunicated your point.
    - l23k4 3mo ago
      > Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy This is an inherent feature of democracy. "The industry" consists entirely of people, of course you can't exclude them. >A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations. "Let's not allow rich people to participate in the political process" has just as many possible non-malicious interpretations as "Let's not allow black people to participate in the political process". i.e. none And even above I'm steelmanning by assuming that Frieren didn't want to also exclude indie developers.

SpaceNugget 3mo ago

You seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body. The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission. Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.

walletdrainer 3mo ago
[flagged]
- SpaceNugget 3mo ago
  > Why are you attributing this to me Because you wrote: > If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious? in response to: > The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens. Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy. Which is something the statement you are replying to clearly doesn't agree with. And rather than accept that there is a disagreement of the purpose of the council or the acceptability of industry lobbyists influencing law or what not, you just frame it as a moral evil (maliciousness) on the part of the other commenter. A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations. Side note: if your comment implies something hard enough (intentionally or not) that multiple people are "windmill-tilting" against something that you think you aren't saying, it deserves some reflection on whether you may have miscommunicated your point.
  - l23k4 3mo ago
    > Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy This is an inherent feature of democracy. "The industry" consists entirely of people, of course you can't exclude them. >A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations. "Let's not allow rich people to participate in the political process" has just as many possible non-malicious interpretations as "Let's not allow black people to participate in the political process". i.e. none And even above I'm steelmanning by assuming that Frieren didn't want to also exclude indie developers.