If there is one type of behavior on the internet that drives me nuts, then it's internet lawyering. By this, I mean people making a big deal about the possibility of something or other being something else than it obviously is, trying to interpretet everything in the best light, and insisting that it's a valid approach, or rather that it's the only valid approach.
This is the sort of behavior where people try to convince others that inviting someone to your hotel room for coffee at 4AM could just be an offer for a caffeinated drink, and that we should ignore the whole cultural baggage (as shown in e.g. movies) associated with such an offer.
It's the same behavior which allows people to claim that people like Pat Condell isn't necessarily supporting a racist, xenophobic party when he endorses them, because it could be that he only supports some of their policies (ignoring the fact that their entire platform is based on racism and xenophobia).
Well, guess what? We don't have to buy into this bullshit. We are allowed to think for ourselves, putting things into the greater context. We are not participating in some fantasy courtroom, where we have to prove things, and where your "clever" evasions will save your client*.
Most of us happens to be reasonably intelligent people, and we have learned to read between the lines, so stop insulting our intelligence.
*Of course, in a real courtroom, this tactic wouldn't work neither. Judges are generally not stupid people, and while the e.g. US courts call for proving people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't mean that the judge and jury have to pretend that there can't be a non-literate meaning to what people say.
Labels: the Internet