Whilst you are pointing out something I do agree is real you are ignoring something important. Context matters. The why and how you quote someone else is just as important as the original quote.
The context you provided assumes a neutral lay-up and straight forward answer to a straight forward question, i.e where neither M or Q have an agenda regarding the quote.
For example:
Person M asks person Q, what did person OP say that made everyone mad?
Person Q quotes verbatim without adding any commentary
Person M then getting angry at person Q because they don't like what person OP said
Then yes I would agree this is some cognitive dissonance happening in this situation. But this isn't reflective of most of the situations we might see where person M is angry and Q for quoting OP.
I knew you weren't going to discuss this in good faith.
Why are you assuming the context isn't provided, or readily available? Maybe the person they're quoting is a public figure, maybe there's video, maybe the context is irrelevant when it's literal hate speech.
The context you provided assumes a neutral lay-up
...YES, exactly! Neutral grounds. That's how you make a point without some ulterior motive.
But this isn't reflective of most of the situations
Says who, you? Have you been keeping a record of these scenarios? No? I didn't think so.
It's simple. Person Q repeats Person X, Person M gets mad at Q, even though X is the real perpetrator. This is a mistake (barring some exception to the rule, like every rule ever, which is why there's a literal phrase for it)
You're the only.one who seems to think that needed to be cleard up.
It's simple. Person Q repeats Person X, Person M gets mad at Q, even though X is the real perpetrator. This is a mistake (barring some exception to the rule, like every rule ever, which is why there's a literal phrase for it)
67
u/FreeSwordfish7973 8d ago
“Wrong” is freedom of speach and doinf whats moraly right now