I didn't get the sense he was dismissing it but rather qualifying it. I can't speak for him but he chose qualifying terms. You chose broad terms.
You accused him of a specific rhetorical feint which he didn't commit and now instead of discussing it with him you're accusing me and him of dismissing the entire movement.
You're ignoring his concern and picking a fight. And your assertion that I don't know anything about it is also a sweeping generalization- as is your assumption about where I'm from or how I feel about labor rights and the ability for the public and private sector employees to strike or take other action.
I am not going to capitulate to that or the abuse of free protest by either the French government or outside agitators as if it's a minor detail I'm afraid — and your conclusions are wholly off base. Wrong actually. My family are miners from a few hundred miles from Paris. Striking and public, sometimes violent protests are how they gained what few concessions they did.
You keep coming back to me with points that I fail to see how they truly matter, nor how they add anything of value to the main debate at hand. I really try to understand your point, but upon re-reading that answer from that user, you trying to make the argument that their words were merely just qualifying ones, and that no dismissal happened, baffles me. It's like you're trying to tell me no subtext at all was at play here, which, like, never ever happens in any discussion, ever?
That person did try to paint the movement in a certain way, by talking about it in a certain way. Which, again, aren't wrong. But are wholly and
dangerously incomplete. Thus making me jump in the conversation to add much needed nuance, context and layer that many would totally miss if they were to create their understanding of the Yellow Vest movement solely based on that user's post. Which would be misinformation, because of how absolutely incomplete (thus reductive by nature) it was, and how dismissiveness was therefore implied in the subtext. Whether it was intended or not is another debate you and I can have ad nauseam, but only that user could clarify that, and I don't quite understand why you keep coming at me with the "maybe that user didn't intend it!" as if that somehow was the utmost important thing to debate here? Words are words, I can only base my rebuttal from what was written here, and that's what I'm countering with my words, not an intent that I cannot grasp since they're not here to clarify it in the first place. You can make the point that I'm projecting people to have the worst intent with their words, and I'll then have you notice that I had to deal, for months, with countless of people, either in media (locally or internationally), or in government(s), trying to use those
exact same statements that user made, in order to dismiss the entire movement altogether, times and times again, and that I will therefore default to that position every single time I see someone trying to, yet again, take that particular stance I can now recognize from miles away, and make those particular statements, with all the subtext they
always imply. I'm not the one who should expect people to have pure intent here, not after what I've been through and seen. That user is, however, the one who maybe should make sure to clarify their intent while speaking about this issue in such incredibly reductive ways.
You then jumped in, playing semantics with me to make a point somewhat, instead of understanding my point of view of why I was doing what I was doing. In this case, I don't think intent should matter as much as the result, and the result is their portrayal of that particular movement, was dismissive by the very sheer nature of how they chose to qualify it. Let's not make the debate that purely qualifying words cannot be used in a statements that could end up looking dismissive by nature, because that would make no sense to me. However you are right in saying that it maybe wasn't their intent, and that I projected without knowing, but 1/ I fail to see how that detail should have such importance in the bigger picture that is this discussion, to the point of you deliberately emphasizing on it repeatedly like you did, and 2/ if that is the case, the user can answer to that, and tell me if I'm wrong, and I'll apologize. But again, their initial statement, looked dismissive to me, prone to spread misinformation by its sheer reductive nature, and this is why, as someone who was close to it, witnessed it several times, supported it like the majority of my fellow citizens, felt the need to rectify that reductive statement, because of how incredibly dangerous it can be in the first place.
Trying to paint it as a majorly alt-right movement, is probably what, ironically, led a lot of Alt-right parties in countries all over the world to adopt it in aesthetics ways while also failing to truly understand its true nature, because of the spread of misinformation about what the actual movement was about in the first place.
That movement did indeed have an alt-right component to it. That was however very much not the majority of it. And I do not think that social and political protests have to be pure from any alt-right participation, in order to be valid, to be taken seriously, and to be legitimate. I have seen however many leftists people (friends or otherwise) trying to dismiss the entire movement altogether, because of its alt-right component, as if the entirety of it was somewhat tainted because of the alt-right participation, which is something that I have been vocally denouncing, as, again, this leads to its mischaracterization, and legitimates dismissive stances about it, I find that incredibly dangerous. A populist movement does not have to justify political purity to have complete legitimacy. (This last paragraph is just me adding yet another layer to my explanations, and not a rebuttal to any specific thing you said, just in case).
I will however apologize for any unnecessary assumptions that was probably made in the process, it was indeed not fair to you in the first place.
