You're a superficial carrier of American culture. Sure you speak English and consume American media, but you have socialist values which are not American. This is the land of the free, not the land of government-enforced equity and insanely high marginal taxes for the rich. Let me guess, you're anti 2nd amendment? If there were more people who thought like you in America, the country would indeed collapse in on itself.
This is a bad explanation. No one is saying that context doesn't matter. The entire argument for using the n word is precisely that context matters. If you use the word referentially, or otherwise not in a malicious way, it's not reasonable to be regarded as a racist.
This is the difference between a strange woman calling you honey in a compassionate personal way, and someone saying "does your wife call you 'honey'?" Or sarcastically "you're a real honey, aren't you?"
So mimicking you proves I am acting in bad faith? Well you got me (that's sarcasm). I mean this in the best and most compassionate way possible: seek help.
So how do you expect me to respond now that I've seen this cartoon? I genuinely have no ill will towards you or anyone, I'm simply trying to defend what I think is right in what I think is the most reasonable and civil way possible. Accusing someone of "sea lioning" is creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, if you're criticizing them for being reasonable and civil, how else should they defend themselves?
Is it possible to bring up ape behavioral studies without being accused of bad intentions? What do you propose is the best way to go about it?
It's well known that there is a lot of shared behavior among apes. We look for patterns in behavior across species to better understand that behavior. I never name-called or dehumanized anyone and to think I did is an unprovoked and uncharitible interpretation of my initial statement. My goal was to frame the behavior Jacques observed in an objective scientific context. My goal was never to "call people chimps." Do you think it's possible for someone to point out shared behavior between humans and other apes without malicious intentions?
It's an observed and documented behavioral pattern, it's not a presumption of motive. No reasonable interpretation of my original comment implies that one should assume all males will act like chimpanzees. Interesting and productive discussion can't be had without paying attention to the nuance of what is being discussed.
You literally said "there can't be a rule for everything" and that's not how civilization operates. Sorry you can be hostile and belittle me all you want but you haven't made an actual counter argument. Regardless of your opinion of me, the fact remains that without more codified rules, HN moderation remains arbitrary and inconsistent, and this will be more apparent when dang and sctb retire.
It's the same in the way that matters, it's a social collection of humans that requires governance. If they want to improve HN they should be codifying more rules as they get more experience. Calling "not groovy" is really not helpful in helping others understand their rationale. Who's going to moderate after dang and sctb are gone? Humans are fallible.
I disagree, our civilization is built on codified laws, otherwise dictators arbitrarily decide what is allowed and what isn't. Is that justice? You're defending injustice. Rules must be written down and clarified, if I'm wrong so is civilization.