I lack fancy thread tools but am willing to just copy paste stuff into Atom, so for those who aren't counting but would like to be: Without counting quoteblocks, the amended appeal was 1221 words after the line. 2599 words with them.
Considering stuff said in my brief interactions with CD about "melting all that is solid into the air" I am wondering if this quote was trying to say something other than turning people to goo:
But we absolutely should not allow a certain aesthete, irrationalist type to smuggle aesthetic concerns into the legal discourse under the guise of protecting artists as an economic profession--down this road leads only to all sorts of repulsive, dangerous anti-modern right-wing politics, which it is the duty of any good man to work to liquidate.
If you take the referent of the last phrase to be the "aesthete, irrationalist type" then that is clearly murdertalk, but I think the referent was meant to be to the sorts of politics, where liquidation refers to some kind of refutation or criticism or... whatever.
But that just changes it from the problem of talking about murdering people to talking in such an arcane way that people are reasonably mistaking you as saying there's a moral imperative certain people should be turned into goo. In another post, after all, CD refers to "the liquidation of conservatives", which I think almost anyone would read as a rather unique euphemism for death. It's only seeing the referent above that has me wondering if that use of "liquidation" was meant to be the whole gawping at people seeing their worldview undermined, or whatever other disillusionment it is CD has some totalitarian loyalty to.
I think these thoughts of mine are worth sharing, but I don't think they impact anything about the tenor of the warnings here. The rules of the forum aren't about whether your conduct does or doesn't meet a moral standard. If what one says creates a hostile atmosphere because it's being read as something other than was meant by it, it's still creating a hostile atmosphere, and I believe these two tribunals went to great lengths to show that exactly that was happening.
Unlike some suggestion in the tribunals, I do not personally think CD is intentionally engaging in obscurantism and indulging in esoteric lexicon and scattershot reference purely for self-amusement. Mainly I feel that way because I have in the past (and still sometimes now) ran into issues where speaking straightforwardly and normally came off as impenetrably dense; or perhaps instead (or as well) came off as incomprehensible in their labyrinthine internal structure.
I have what seems to me to be a keen mind for tracking referents, and can tend to write with them situated a comfortable mental distance apart (in my interpretation and understanding of the words as I write them) only to find that, for most other people, at least those who tend to respond which admittedly may shift things somewhat but are nonetheless certainly numerous enough to represent a large chunk of people, they had exited their working memory. The referents, I mean. Okay so that sentence was on purpose to try and illustrate what I mean by a stale reference, but I swear I wrote "labyrinthine internal structure" as like, the normal straightforward way of how to say what I mean.
I've struggled greatly with brevity and condensing things. I am comfortable with a heightened level of density. I can make overfull paragraphs and run-on sentences. There are things that I've written and can think they're too long but can't figure out what to remove to cut them down; every piece is doing something important, scant few bricks can be slid out and leave what seems to me the same message. But in the name of preserving the exact correct rendition of what I mean to say, sometimes I write things that won't mean shit to half the people who read them because they're overlong messes. It's gotten better with practice, though. It's something that's worth practicing.
This probably reads like projection and there probably is some of that in here, but really I'm sparked to make this particular comment most especially by this:
Moreover, in the same post where I use the term "annihilate", right afterwards I also wrote an long paen to the central importance of a ruthless critique of all that exists, which I think makes clear that when I say "annihilated" what I mean is "ruthlessly critiqued"
I'm avoiding Umineko spoilers so I haven't gone into its originating context, but I am going to confidently tell you that
almost certainly it was not abundantly clear that you meant "annihilate" to mean "ruthlessly critiqued". That is an uncommon euphemism. It's
related to a common usage, but distinct—people will often say that a critique has
destroyed or
annihilated its subject, but the reverse isn't so intuitive. You need to make explicit that you are talking about criticism, scope in on it, and
then you can colorfully call that criticism by whatever vicious terms you like. Mentioning, say, that you have an insistence on totalitarian political loyalty to progressivism will lead to people readjusting the scope back out. Then they'll read annihilate as meaning, well, annihilation. I think a lot of your verbiage is intended in a specific manner that people just aren't picking up on.
It can be difficult to figure out this sort of nuance where stuff that's obvious and straightforward to you is anything but to most other people, but missing that nuance isn't helping how you come off, I don't think. It's not the whole of the problem, but it's part of it. I could be totally off-base here but I would rather say something and be wrong than to have not pointed this out if I'm correct in it. This sort of disconnect can be hard to spot, or at least it was (and is) for me.
forums.sufficientvelocity.com
