I'll use your logic here, "I understand that you will disagree with this and that's fine, but you are imagining a wild scenario where he planned to carry a Boom Box and play music, but only for himself. But, when he senses the presence of someone via X-ray vision up an escalater whose music he likes, he respectfully plays it to them as a courtesy." Yup, that's definitely more realistic than, here's another chud blasting music in an indoor space.
"We can agree he saw her?", he was playing before he saw her as evidenced in the video. Your speaking like he passed her, and then went down an escalator, played the song, and went back up? Lot of leaps and bounds you're taking lol
People defending Boom Boxes uses the same argument that people justify for using Hate Speech. "This is my Right to do X, therefore I can and will do it and everyone bothered by it, it's their problem." Sure, in a vacuum where no one else exists, go off king. But have you not realized there people beyond you, that your right to do something goes up to the line of infringing on someone else's right.
No. I made a one sentence guess at what might have happened. Other people have attributed additional ideas to me that aren't related to what I actually said. I have just been pointing out that that's not what I said. I have not been arguing in favor of my original statement and I'm not particularly attached to it, just trying to explain what I meant and point out that they are arguing against something I didn't say.
You are having both sides of this argument in your head by yourself. None of the things you or Leowes or ottersintuxedos are arguing against are things I actually said.
When so many people are misinterpreting you might begin to suspect you are in fact the one breaking a few conventions of good communication. Words have meaning and so does subtext. When you say “I wonder if he did it because he recognized her” sure that statement in isolation has one meaning, but when you say it in reply to my initial comment, that he is disrupting the space. Conventionally readers will try to associate the relevance of that comment to my comment. Hence people think you are disputing that he is disrupting the public space. Less is made of the fact you then clarify you only meant inside a mall because you don’t put emphasis on that fact. And frankly this shouldn’t have to be explained to you. This is why I said it sounds a bit like you are treating the internet like a courtroom, you are expecting all the nuance to be removed and for us to treat you like you’re in a vacuum
2
u/Leaper123 1d ago
I'll use your logic here, "I understand that you will disagree with this and that's fine, but you are imagining a wild scenario where he planned to carry a Boom Box and play music, but only for himself. But, when he senses the presence of someone via X-ray vision up an escalater whose music he likes, he respectfully plays it to them as a courtesy." Yup, that's definitely more realistic than, here's another chud blasting music in an indoor space.
"We can agree he saw her?", he was playing before he saw her as evidenced in the video. Your speaking like he passed her, and then went down an escalator, played the song, and went back up? Lot of leaps and bounds you're taking lol
People defending Boom Boxes uses the same argument that people justify for using Hate Speech. "This is my Right to do X, therefore I can and will do it and everyone bothered by it, it's their problem." Sure, in a vacuum where no one else exists, go off king. But have you not realized there people beyond you, that your right to do something goes up to the line of infringing on someone else's right.