Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I did say this in the example, but the mis-grouping can be more than just by race or aspects of identity. Blue hair was picked to shorten the example, not to make it a racial thing. Sometimes, the misleading about who is performing the grouping can be performed by the "Mike" regardless of what Bob said, by cherry-picking statements and leading people to draw inferences. Sometimes all it takes is Bob making any statement like "They're all bastards!" absent of extremely specific context around who Bob means by "They".
If that still doesn't make sense, I could provide more examples.
Bob is doing the grouping. He segregates (also himself) by saying things like "they all..."
People don't like segregation, because it's groundless gatekeeping, and also don't like being called bastards. Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it's about blue haired people.
No, you're doing the grouping. Here, I'll give you the full quote that I didn't include in my above context (easy to do in this case since it's a made-up scenario)
"I can't believe there are farmers out there that would sell people rotten produce, knowingly! That's a betrayal of everything agriculture stands for! They're all bastards!"
"Those are harsh words."
"They are. I grew up on a farming community. So many of these people are working with what they've got, and will still give you the shirt off their back. Wonderful folks all around. So hearing about cheats like that, not caring about who they poison, really boils my blood."
But-!...You may cry. This full excerpt makes clear he loves farmers! He just specifically hates the ones that sell rotten produce! That doesn't matter. I could still say that: When talking about farmers, Bob was quoted: "They're all bastards" and that simple statement would be correct.
So I'm sure you are ready to give a wealth of reasons why "that doesn't count", but this really does happen in modern contexts, over just a few words.
You just didn't say it like that before. Did Bob or anyone clear this up? I'd say whoever twisted his words is selling rotten products. And also an idiot for trying to denounce him for whatever was available and would upset people.
I'd still say whataboutism .. by using a lie
Part of the whole point of this sentence is that I am, very intentionally, including that quote, absent of context. So yes, I didn't "say it like that before" - that's the point.
The theoretical Bob also might not follow online conversations, or feel he owes anyone any apologies. So no, in many real cases, he will not clear anything up with anyone. In many real cases, the "full interview" will be harder to find than the selected bit that deceivers will highlight. It comes down to individuals being willing to ask clarifying questions about these partial-context presentations.
This deceiver is clearly not an idiot, because they got you to say: "Bob is only being unfair and expects people to do what he wants. Not sure if I would trust Bob when he said anything about anyone, especially when it’s about blue haired people.". I could even extend the example: Now, another Michael who wants to generate division can come to this forum, and point to the way you describe him, and get Bob to believe you hate him, even if you were only interpreting twisted words.
I think youre making some great examples of what youre looking for here.
I don't know if there is a word to describe it though, but I'm leaning towards DARVO or at least the subset "Reverse Victim and Offender", or something simpler like blame-shifting or attention-shifting.
What's wrong with you. Only you made me say this by providing insufficient information lol.
Bob can clear up things. Talking to everyone.
What do you want? You don't like people talking shit about you because of what others might think. But then you claim you don't care about other people's opinions at all and don't want to correct wrong statements because you wouldn't feel the need? Of course "Bob" is dependent on other people, just like every human.