And you don’t expect that to make you just seem defensive about radicalism, even at the cost of rationale?

Spoken as if listening to yours doesn’t just sound like someone who just wants to defend the recent anti-establishment sentiments from the one guy with some power to point out their questionable validity, as also shown by the fact I have obliged when previously asked the kinds of you are asking now, which would make me the one who isn’t a simp.

The fucking amphibians that crawled out of the ocean are intelligent enough

Rule of thumb, if it comes from the ocean, it’s not an amphibian, as they are 100% freshwater creatures, something even amphibians that come out of Lake Champlain here know. The fact you are comparing my intelligence to something which makes us all question what planet you are from (in a place where everyone else is down to Earth) as an ad hominem raises eyebrows more than it illustrates a point or sentiment.

If it was where we already were, you’d think questions wouldn’t have to be asked that the things I redirect to answer. You otherwise demonstrate exactly what I just said in your words just now.

Inferring means taking two or more details and coming up with (one might phrase it as triangulating) a new realization based on them. For example, if someone said “I live in Andorra” and then elsewhere said “my phone number is six digits long”, you can infer they use a cell phone because immobile phones there use seven digit phone numbers.

This is inference, the stuff of Sherlock Holmes, which is different from how we apply the words “assuming” (which one might say would mean concluding something based on false interpretations of details, e.g. if they said “I live in Andorra” and you think they speak Catalan based on it being the official language since not everyone has to speak the official language), “reading between the lines” (which one might say is the same thing but based in themes, e.g. saying someone must be Andorran if someone dressed like an Andorran, spoke like an Andorran, etc. when they could be French and just happen to do things like an Andorran), and “reading the room” (which one might say refers to vibes, e.g. someone saying they’re from Andorra and they say it in a shy tone so it registers to you as a sensitive topic for them even if the tone is actually circumstantial).

What part of what I said are you getting that from?

I’m not “citing my post”, I’m showing you that I’ve done what you say I haven’t. You’re looking an awful lot more into what I say than what Alan Moore has been shown to have said.

You say that like Anonymous isn’t an example. I’ve mentioned a few.

Says who?

I was saying that to demonstrate it’s not just “some fandom” or “some movement”, as opposed to something that challenges they can mix. The point being he denounces a large swath of the things done by those who cite him as inspiration, whether by name or not depending on the exact movement or act. And the book was where the symbol originated, not the movie. He didn’t make the movie.

You say that like anyone has to be specific about it, and even then it ignores Anonymous (which is a movement) takes the spotlight here. You can infer a few things if you take his words and apply them to different movements. In fact, it can be applied to your approach to his criticism here. Unless, of course, Alan Moore is inconsistent as a political thinker in the first place.

In the world of Alan Moore, fandom intertwines with political movements. Anonymous literally uses his Guy Fawkes Mask as its sole symbol. Have you never watched V for Vendetta or read up on Anonymous?

You say that like that invalidates my takeaway from it. In the world of Alan Moore, the two topics are mixed by default, with one often used as a proxy discussion for the other. Given this context, you could easily go to those who are acting on behalf of either a fandom or a movement and say “heed this person’s caution” and it wouldn’t be out of place.

It came off as a kind of blanket piece the way I absorbed it, like it could apply to Trump and Johnson but it could also apply to political movements in general as well as his fictional genres, hence the first part where he mentions his first experiences with comic book clubs.

He wrote a whole piece, though I’m not sure how to quote it considering his verbal vibes.

You’re describing the early days, though. That’s what most people see remarked on. The point is about what this all turned into. He can quite specifically be quoted as referring to how toxic things seem to have become.

Oh, that. If I am to weigh in on that, I would strongly disagree with Roland Barthes here. There is a reason we call things canon when it comes from the author and headcanon when it comes from the viewer. Whether something is up for interpretation is as subjective or relative as the interpretations themselves.

They weren’t backing me up. Or are you referring to them?

What happened was I happened to step on an unlucky metaphorical giant hornet’s nest responding to someone who was randomly bringing up Luigi. If a form of advocacy is extreme enough, it causes a cautionary reaction, which is the most concise way I can put it. I then mentioned the whole thing elsewhere, but the ever-famous Blaze then asked me to not preach to the choir, instead saying I should tell everyone who was relevant to it. So I did, and that got removed by one of the mods of [email protected] who told me to bring the matter to [email protected] instead. So I complied again, doing that, and rather than being meditative, the response from all of them came off as vigilant, and then he posited the idea of bringing it back to [email protected] formatted as a “the mods of YPTB removed my inquiry” complaint. So, again, I complied, only for both of the people in charge there to shame me for my way of thinking and implying I did everything I did in an attempt not to comply. All because a hundred people held the position that the CEO’s murder was ethically unquestionable.

look at how forceful they are about spreading their ideologies here in the fediverse

You can say that again.

Hence why appropriation is a thing.