3 ms·
It's supposed to be clever, I imagine. It just comes across as churlish, though. EDIT: Even the fact that the comment was edited from some stupid pseudocode,
by rosser 8y ago
It's supposed to be clever, I imagine.
It just comes across as churlish, though.
EDIT: Even the fact that the comment was edited from some stupid pseudocode, into something that cries "wrongthink" plays thusly...
- Dylan16807 8y agoI'm not sure how 'pseudocode' justifies "what the hell is this"..?
- BoorishBears 8y agoIt wasn’t psuedocode as much as oddly racially charged drivel.
- narrator 8y agoMy definition of "wrongthink" is suggesting that facts support confirmation of a narrative, regardless of what the facts are, when that narrative has become socially unacceptable. For example, in Chinese society, to suggest that religious minorities are being mistreated by the government is "wrongthink" regardless of what the facts are. If this kid had been from a Uyghur family in China and his father had been killed in a Chinese internment camp it would not be "wrongthink" for a western newspaper to say "8-year old fleeing from religious oppression in China wins New York State Championship", though it would be "wrongthink" to print this in a Chinese newspaper or even an Indonesian newspaper. A presidential candidate in Indonesia recently declined to comment on China's mistreatment of muslims for example.
- rosser 8y agoThat's fine. I even agree with that definition. The thing is, literally none of the words you used in your pseudocode are "wrongthink" here. This was straight-up, "person says awful thing, catches flak, and cries oppression." EDIT: That's not oppression. It's disapproval.
- narrator 8y agoAn awful thing can be a socially unacceptable narrative regardless of what the facts are.