this absolute insistence that mentioning “both sides” makes you some kind of enlightened centrist that is somehow above the issue being discussed, it really pisses me off.
So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?
When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I’ll try to rephrase it so that it’s not confusing.
People who insist on mentioning “both sides”, like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.
If this makes more sense, I’ll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.
The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, “insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist” implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn’t the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that “mentioning both sides makes you some kind of” implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.
I think actually the issue here might be that you didn’t realize that in this space, calling someone an “enlightened centrist” is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker
But I do realise that. I was trying to say that people who say “both sides” are motherfuckers. Was even that unclear? If so, this really goes down as a massive failpost.
You said that insisting saying “both sides” makes you an enlightened centrist pisses you off. Johnny read that as saying it pisses you off that people assume anyone who says “both sides” is a motherfucker.
So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?
When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I’ll try to rephrase it so that it’s not confusing.
People who insist on mentioning “both sides”, like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.
If this makes more sense, I’ll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.
Yeah idk I thought you were fine too, sorry your phrasing wasn’t good enough for them
The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, “insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist” implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn’t the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that “mentioning both sides makes you some kind of” implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.
I think I understand where the structural issue was. I’ve edited the original post to reflect that. Thanks for sticking around to help me iron it out.
I think actually the issue here might be that you didn’t realize that in this space, calling someone an “enlightened centrist” is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker
Or my favorite
“deeply unserious”
“If a communist calls you ‘deeply unserious’ it means they want to kill you.” - some Twitter post I saw a while ago that lives in my head
But I do realise that. I was trying to say that people who say “both sides” are motherfuckers. Was even that unclear? If so, this really goes down as a massive failpost.
You said that insisting saying “both sides” makes you an enlightened centrist pisses you off. Johnny read that as saying it pisses you off that people assume anyone who says “both sides” is a motherfucker.