It is more complicated, but that's how communication works; most people do not mean anything close to the literal wording they use -- "Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded".
If you refuse to "play that game", then you get to be offended a lot more often, but you will also have to draw a distinction between how you understand communication from in-group and out-group, which seems to me to be even more complicated. :)
> you will also have to draw a distinction between how you understand communication from in-group and out-group
Holy projection, Batman!
What you are saying is that in order to fully understand what Biden means when he says "you ain't black if you don't vote for me", we have to search for a meaning for this that puts Biden in the best possible light while still maintaining a modicum of plausibility.
Meanwhile, to take an example of understanding communication from the out-group, when Trump says "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" what he really meant was "let's go burn the Capitol down and murder everyone we can find, and also overthrow the government lol!1!1!!1!!!!". And we know that's what he meant because we have to search for the worst possible meaning of his words, and throw that modicum of plausibility right out the window. Then blame Trump for breaking the window.
But to you this is the less "complicated" way of understanding communication from the in-group and the out-group?
All anm89 is proposing is to just listen to what both men said. The same. For both of them. But this is what you're calling too complicated?
Frankly I think you replied to the wrong comment here, probably because you disagree with my views and not the other commenters' views. I did not turn the conversation primarily to interpreting Biden's remarks. That was tangential to my original on-topic (but downvoted and flagged because wrongthink) comment.
I am no doubt guilty of responding with undue incredulity to some hard-to-understand claims in the ensuing off-topic thread. But if you feel that the thread has descended into flamewar, you should look at who turned the conversation to flamewar topics, and it was not me.
How about in the future I endeavor not to continue flamewar topics, and you endeavor not to blame the whole thread on the first non-leftist commenter in the thread, eh? Seems fair.
It always feels like the mods are against you. I don't even know what your views are—that's not the filter through which I read comments like this. There's too much quantity to work through and it's not energy-efficient to do that.
Yes, everyone reads everything through the filter of their own worldview. That's a different sense of 'filter'. What I mean is that I'm looking for markers of guidelines breakage. Is it possible to scan comments primarily for that? Sure it is, especially if one has done it many thousands of times.
It's common for people to reach for the moderator's 'worldview' as an explanation for why they got moderated, but usually the explanation is far simpler and easier to see. In this case you broke the site guidelines by taking the the thread into ideological battle. Please don't.
> What you are saying is that in order to fully understand what Biden means when he says "you ain't black if you don't vote for me", we have to search for a meaning for this that puts Biden in the best possible light while still maintaining a modicum of plausibility.
Your post is kind of a case of exactly what I mean, for sure, given that I don't at all agree with what you claim I am saying!
But I would note that you reworded the "quote" from Biden to make it more clearly what you believe he meant, when the actual quote is right there a few comments up.
If you refuse to "play that game", then you get to be offended a lot more often, but you will also have to draw a distinction between how you understand communication from in-group and out-group, which seems to me to be even more complicated. :)