6 ms·

You mean furthering a different political narrative than you are.

eldude 11y ago
So, you focus on attacking my point with insinuation and equivocation, yet ignore the exploitative anti-intellectual (fact-less) position of the TechCrunch author, whose sole contribution to the story was to inject race? Conveniently, you ignored the facts and in doing so implicitly mischaractered me as equally lacking in factual basis for my "narrative", which, of course, is absurdly wrong, since my first word, "Exactly" presupposes the parents' citations.
- boomlinde 11y ago
  Perhaps surprisingly, to a small amount of people, "Exactly" isn't the source of the irony that I pointed out, but the fact that you are referring to the real issue, by which you dismiss that there are any other real issues involved. You did so without making a factual argument and without sharing any of the reasoning that had you arrive at that conclusion. The mystical real issue for which no other explanation is offered is like a textbook example of a political narrative.
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    The spirit of Murray Rothbard personally touched the poster and imbued him with sacred realisation, obviously.
  - eldude 11y ago
    The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Based on the facts in the OP and parent comment, I was disassembling the race-baiting rhetoric as anti-intellectual and fact-less (which, since you missed it, is itself a fact), to refocus on the original issue. Meanwhile, double-ironically, you again ignore context and facts, equivocate ("real issue"), and wildly mischaracterize me to make an increasingly invalid point based on a fundamental misunderstanding of my comment.
    - boomlinde 11y ago
      The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion. It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.
      - eldude 11y ago
        You falsely conclude that I have a singular (implicitly subjective) "real issue", to which I "offer" "no other explanation." In fact, despite your projecting, by "real" / "original" issue, I meant the mistreatment of children by authority in schools, which is both the context of the parent comment and the original article from which the TechCrunch article derives. Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."
        elektromekatron 11y ago
        "All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic" I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.
        eldude 11y ago
        > I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it. Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple. Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."

So, you focus on attacking my point with insinuation and equivocation, yet ignore the exploitative anti-intellectual (fact-less) position of the TechCrunch author, whose sole contribution to the story was to inject race? Conveniently, you ignored the facts and in doing so implicitly mischaractered me as equally lacking in factual basis for my "narrative", which, of course, is absurdly wrong, since my first word, "Exactly" presupposes the parents' citations.

boomlinde 11y ago
Perhaps surprisingly, to a small amount of people, "Exactly" isn't the source of the irony that I pointed out, but the fact that you are referring to the real issue, by which you dismiss that there are any other real issues involved. You did so without making a factual argument and without sharing any of the reasoning that had you arrive at that conclusion. The mystical real issue for which no other explanation is offered is like a textbook example of a political narrative.
- cholantesh 11y ago
  The spirit of Murray Rothbard personally touched the poster and imbued him with sacred realisation, obviously.
- eldude 11y ago
  The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Based on the facts in the OP and parent comment, I was disassembling the race-baiting rhetoric as anti-intellectual and fact-less (which, since you missed it, is itself a fact), to refocus on the original issue. Meanwhile, double-ironically, you again ignore context and facts, equivocate ("real issue"), and wildly mischaracterize me to make an increasingly invalid point based on a fundamental misunderstanding of my comment.
  - boomlinde 11y ago
    The only irony here is your complete failure to understand my original comment and your own failure to provide reasoning for your own false conclusion. Which exactly is my false conclusion? Weren't you referring to the real issue? Doesn't the determiner in that mean that there is a only a single such thing? Did you offer any basis for the assumption that it was indeed the single real issue? Those are the assumptions of my conclusion. It's fair if you wrote "the real issue" and actually meant something else, in which case my conclusion would indeed be invalid, but not writing in clear terms hardly puts you in a position to accuse me of equivocation.
    - eldude 11y ago
      You falsely conclude that I have a singular (implicitly subjective) "real issue", to which I "offer" "no other explanation." In fact, despite your projecting, by "real" / "original" issue, I meant the mistreatment of children by authority in schools, which is both the context of the parent comment and the original article from which the TechCrunch article derives. Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."
      - elektromekatron 11y ago
        "All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic" I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.
        eldude 11y ago
        > I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it. Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple. Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."