Yeah, absolutely. That’s, like, the whole idea behind tolerance, right? The idea that you can find someone abhorrent but still accept that they have a right to continue existing?
Tolerance as a concept is pretty central and integral to any functioning society.
The point I was making, was the line between “coexist” and “not murder someone” is a pretty wide gap.
It’s like saying anyone with a dollar is “rich” everyone else is “poor” and those are the two options.
Or like if you told me “good morning” and when I reply with “morning” you accuse me of wishing death and destruction on your city because that wouldn’t be good and I left good off.
Just a ridiculous reduction of language.
Apparently though, that’s just where the bar is these days. And language doesn’t follow rules, it follows how people use it
I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”
The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”
Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.
But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.
Interpreting the meaning of these words differently can lead to the ambiguous situation where someone with the intent to do so can paint this as a call for extremism and rise to violence.
And “I didn’t mean it like that” doesn’t really cut it in today’s weaponized social media environment.
I assume it means what it always means?
Have you ever seen someone use “coexist” to mean “not instantly murder someone” before?
I know bars get lowered at record pace these days but have you ever seen it used that way?
Yeah, absolutely. That’s, like, the whole idea behind tolerance, right? The idea that you can find someone abhorrent but still accept that they have a right to continue existing?
Tolerance as a concept is pretty central and integral to any functioning society.
The point I was making, was the line between “coexist” and “not murder someone” is a pretty wide gap.
It’s like saying anyone with a dollar is “rich” everyone else is “poor” and those are the two options.
Or like if you told me “good morning” and when I reply with “morning” you accuse me of wishing death and destruction on your city because that wouldn’t be good and I left good off.
Just a ridiculous reduction of language.
Apparently though, that’s just where the bar is these days. And language doesn’t follow rules, it follows how people use it
I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”
The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”
Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.
But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.
You’re not wrong.
Interpreting the meaning of these words differently can lead to the ambiguous situation where someone with the intent to do so can paint this as a call for extremism and rise to violence. And “I didn’t mean it like that” doesn’t really cut it in today’s weaponized social media environment.
Lol yes yes I have.
yes. all the time.