No, he was not saying the same thing.

He was implying that I was denying Tim's rationale for seeing this as a big story.

I think that it might not be a big story, based on how frequently it happens.

you said it's frequent, i said it's not normal
the two statements aren't contradictory

I was arguing that the severity of an incident alone does not determine this, which is why I brought up the case infant death.

and i didn't mean to attack you, so i'm sorry if it came across that way

It is a loss of life, yet, due to how frequently it happens, we do not see it as an extraordinary news study.

When he implied that "It shouldn't ever be normal, it's normal to get worked up about it." it was implying that I was trying to normalize it.

suspicious packages arriving is not abnormal. Ones which are reported as being potentially functional bombs, are.

That is incredibly patronizing, because the implication is that I was diminishing it through normalizing it.

Dude, he wasnt saying you were normalising it

He was just saying he thinks it shouldnt be seen as normal

And I was saying that it might be normal, without trying to artificially diminish the severity of such an incident.

that's not what i was trying to say
but my timing and phrasing were bad, sorry about that

Alright.

If that's not what you meant, fine.

Well, rather than normal, should we use commonplace

Something can be commonplace, but not normal

No, I am just saying that normal and severe is not the same. It's normal that we die, but I would never want to diminish the death of a person.

I wasn't trying to diminish the severity of injuries a letter bomb can cause, but depending on how frequently it happens, it could still be selective feeding of news outlets.

Exactly, it s commonplace, but even though it is commonplace it is not normal

I would argue that no crime is normal

I don't see the difference between commonplace and normal. They are both terms used to denote frequency.

And that crime is the antithesis of normality in a societal setting

The distinction I am trying to make is between frequency and severity/impact.

Those are orthogonal characteristics.

to me, "normal" implies a level of acceptance
as in, something follows the norms

To me, the word normal has ethical connections rather than being strictly frequency

Okay ... I don't think I'm being understood. At the least, I was wrong to assume that it was intentional.

I am sorry to have assumed malice, but I still maintain I am being misconstrued, even if inadvertently.

aye, we seem to be talking past each other
imma go have dinner instead of interrupting with semantics

Okay. Enjoy your dinner.

Normal is a very subjective word, since what is normal to one person can be not normal to another

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-24/nyt-op-ed-george-soros-son-blames-trump-and-demonization-opponents-bomb-packages

And here we go. Right on time.

"In what must be one of the most rapidly written, edited, and published op-eds in New York Times history, Alexander Soros, son of billionaire globalist puppet-master George Soros, has penned a blame-scaping piece pointing directly at president Trump's "politics of demonizing opponents" as responsible for the bombing of his father, The Clintons, The Obamas, and well anyone else who has received a suspicious package in the last few days and is not in any way right-leaning."

That's what I was trying to get at.

I still hold that these mysterious packages were Note 7's

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

lel

kek