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.
When you say these things you are implying that you feel it is okay to make assumptions based at best adjacent, at worst contradictory statements someone has said. That is to say, your vibes about a person.
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).
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.
Your entire point is ‘vibes’ based? Fr?
Says who?
You literally just said that you are not basing your argument off of things he has actually said but rather your feelings about him as a person
What part of what I said are you getting that from?
“like anyone has to be specific about it”
“You can infer”
When you say these things you are implying that you feel it is okay to make assumptions based at best adjacent, at worst contradictory statements someone has said. That is to say, your vibes about a person.
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).