• @Dasus
    link
    English
    -12 months ago

    So you agree that you should have an opinion on this, when you just explicitly avoided that, despite that having been my point all along?

    Ei tarvinnu kyllä nickiä kattoa että tunnisti suomalaisen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      I have always had an opinion about it, I just don’t see a reason to bring it up when it is not the point of what I’m saying. That could be a little obnoxious.

      • @Dasus
        link
        English
        02 months ago

        Oh yes, it would just be totally obnoxious to voice an opinion against child genital mutilation, on a FORUM.

        “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

        ― Desmond Tutu (Foreword)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          If it’s on a place where everyone already agrees and it’s not even the point of what I was saying then yes, it can be pretty obnoxious.

          If you are neutral

          I’m not neutral though.

          • @Dasus
            link
            English
            02 months ago

            I’m not neutral though.

            I haven’t taken any moral position on that.

            Okay. Ever heard of the term “avoidance”?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 months ago

              You’ve misunderstood. I have a moral position, I haven’t made a moral stance in this thread. Do you get the difference?

              • @Dasus
                link
                English
                02 months ago

                For about a dozen comments, I’ve been banging on about how my point is that my opinion is that there is absolutely no reason not to oppose child genital mutilation — during which you first actively avoided even taking a stance, and now say you always had a stance, but just refrained from telling it out of politeness.

                I’ve seen this a thousand times. Like I said, I knew your nationality before I happened to gaze at the nick. That attitude is exactly what I’ve been protesting the whole time. Protesting, and reiterating that I’m protesting it. Which you’ve not gotten. Despite me pointing this out several times.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  22 months ago

                  You’re here protesting someone (who already agrees with you) because I didn’t care to soapbox about my view since the discussion didn’t call for it and we all already agree. This is slacktivism at its finest.

                  • @Dasus
                    link
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    You very explicitly stated “I haven’t taken any moral position on that”, but after I point out how weird it would be to not have a position on that, you suddenly always had one, just conveniently adding “in this thread” to the end.

                    You chose to say that you’re actively deciding not to voice an opinion, ie you’re proclaiming a neutral position in the context of this conversation. That is a position.

                    It’s not soapboxing to not be pathologically avoidant of ever having an opinion publicly.

                    The sad part is you honestly don’t even what I’m talking about. I’m yet to figure out what it is about the Finnish language / culture / mentality which breeds this sort of thing. It’s infuriatingly common in Finland.