5 ms·

Yes. You're the one bringing up the fact that you're South Korean for some reason. I'm rebutting your comment with more information that actually suits Korea.

Yes. You're the one bringing up the fact that you're South Korean for some reason. I'm rebutting your comment with more information that actually suits Korea. I know what you're saying, I'm not sure what being Korean has to do with that. And no, no one said you could not earn money in Korea through fads. What does that have to do with what I wrote? I'm saying they are most definitely capable of lying, especially in cases where lying grants you a huge boost to future results. Are you replying to the right comment here?

sanxiyn 5y ago
handmodel mentioned "I'm not South Korean", that's why I mentioned it. That's all.
- seoulmetro 5y ago
  Yes. You mentioned that you were South Korean, so I mentioned it. That's all. So I don't quite understand what warrants a WTF. I backed up why I disagree that a single spark determines whether it's not BS. I assumed, being in Korea for so long, it'd be a given first thing to bring up when someone asks if hype is actually genuine. So I brought it up. Every fad with even the slightest traction will be overvalued more in Korea, and it will also fall out of favour much faster too. The cycle is very much filled with BS that hasn't started to stink yet. You should see the investment funded startup scene in Korea. It's very close to throwing anything at the wall and waiting for the one that sticks. Which is a shame given how technologically empowered Koreans are. I'm still unsure why it made anyone upset. But then again, this is the internet. p.s: Post is rate limited now, so there was a delay in this reply.
  - robocat 5y ago
    FYI perhaps your misunderstanding of the WTF is because you didn't realise what you said in English? "If you were South Korean" is exactly saying "You are not South Korean", which sanxiyn rightly took offense to. As a native English speaker from the colonies, I have zero idea whether "If you were" in this usage is the subjunctive, or if it is a conditional clause, or something else. Maybe I need to take an ESOL course to learn English grammar.
    - seoulmetro 5y ago
      No. It is exactly what it is written as. "If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." It's not saying you were there or not, it's saying that you probably should maintain knowledge of the following clause. I suppose it could also mean you were not there. But not always. I can see why they'd get upset if I was assuming they're not Korean. But that's not what I said or meant. It would be considered directly saying that if I were to say "You can't be Korean because ____" or "You would be Korean if you ______".
      - mkl 5y ago
        It may not be what you meant, but it is what you inadvertently said. I think you might be thinking of a similar construct which doesn't imply it's false: "If you're Korean, you realise ...". The "you" here is non-specific, and the phrase doesn't say you're Korean or not Korean. The present tense and lack of speculative "would" are what make the difference. "If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." is saying you were not at the beach, and implying you didn't see the shark. "If you were tall, you would have been able to see it" is saying you are not tall, and implying you couldn't see it. The "if", "were", and "would" make the phrase a hypothetical counterfactual, imagining that the statement is true and supplying a consequence, and this means that the statement is actually false (i.e. you were not at the beach). This meaning holds when speaking about a specific "you", like the person you're replying to. I'm sure there's a name for this grammatical construct, but I don't know it. The sentence may be incorrect, in which case the person you're speaking to could correct it with "I was at the beach, but I didn't see it", "I saw it by climbing on a rock", or "WTF I am Korean". It's possible the speaker may suspect their sentence is incorrect and be using it to ask a question indirectly, inviting correction. A more general meaning is possible when you're not talking about a specific person, but using the conditional to imagine a group of people or something, e.g. "If you were employed, you could afford it, and if you were on a benefit you could afford it, so most people can afford it." I think this usage is uncommon though, as there are much clearer ways to phrase that sort of thing. It's definitely not the usage you wrote. Source: Native English speaker, but not trained grammarian. Also wrote way too much because it's late at night and I can't be succinct.
alias_neo 5y ago
> bringing up the fact that you're South Korean for some reason It's completely normal to qualify one's perspective, and often beneficial. in fact for people to know whether your comment is an opinion, or based on some actual experience, knowledge, skill, etc, it adds value to the discussion. In the context of South Korean culture, it's absolutely useful to know the commenter is South Korean. If we're talking about tea, crumpets, or the rain, I might point out that I'm British.
- seoulmetro 5y ago
  If you were British, you would know where York is. It's not saying you don't know. It's saying that, this should be part of your knowledge based on you being British. I don't see how that's offensive.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Because as others have already explained, that's not what that phrasing suggests. "If you were/you would" suggests that it's a purely theoretical perspective and thus strongly implies "you aren't". "If you were British..." and "If you are British..." have very different subtext.
    - seoulmetro 5y ago
      No they don't. No it doesn't.
  - alias_neo 5y ago
    Nuance of the English language, but, "If you were British, you would know where York is", suggests I'm not British, and implies I don't know where York is. That specific form of the sentence has negative connotations and might be considered divisive in (British) English. It's essentially a challenge to my honesty, and had you said "if you are" rather than "if you were" it'd be a more amiable challenge, implying I should respond with proof that I know where York is, and not suggest I'm being dishonest. As I said, it's divisive, but to some may be considered offensive too. Just one word makes all of the difference. If you want to suggest I would know where York is by virtue of being British, you might say; "You will know where York is, because you're British" or "You must know where York is, you're British".

sanxiyn 5y ago

handmodel mentioned "I'm not South Korean", that's why I mentioned it. That's all.

seoulmetro 5y ago
Yes. You mentioned that you were South Korean, so I mentioned it. That's all. So I don't quite understand what warrants a WTF. I backed up why I disagree that a single spark determines whether it's not BS. I assumed, being in Korea for so long, it'd be a given first thing to bring up when someone asks if hype is actually genuine. So I brought it up. Every fad with even the slightest traction will be overvalued more in Korea, and it will also fall out of favour much faster too. The cycle is very much filled with BS that hasn't started to stink yet. You should see the investment funded startup scene in Korea. It's very close to throwing anything at the wall and waiting for the one that sticks. Which is a shame given how technologically empowered Koreans are. I'm still unsure why it made anyone upset. But then again, this is the internet. p.s: Post is rate limited now, so there was a delay in this reply.
- robocat 5y ago
  FYI perhaps your misunderstanding of the WTF is because you didn't realise what you said in English? "If you were South Korean" is exactly saying "You are not South Korean", which sanxiyn rightly took offense to. As a native English speaker from the colonies, I have zero idea whether "If you were" in this usage is the subjunctive, or if it is a conditional clause, or something else. Maybe I need to take an ESOL course to learn English grammar.
  - seoulmetro 5y ago
    No. It is exactly what it is written as. "If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." It's not saying you were there or not, it's saying that you probably should maintain knowledge of the following clause. I suppose it could also mean you were not there. But not always. I can see why they'd get upset if I was assuming they're not Korean. But that's not what I said or meant. It would be considered directly saying that if I were to say "You can't be Korean because ____" or "You would be Korean if you ______".
    - mkl 5y ago
      It may not be what you meant, but it is what you inadvertently said. I think you might be thinking of a similar construct which doesn't imply it's false: "If you're Korean, you realise ...". The "you" here is non-specific, and the phrase doesn't say you're Korean or not Korean. The present tense and lack of speculative "would" are what make the difference. "If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." is saying you were not at the beach, and implying you didn't see the shark. "If you were tall, you would have been able to see it" is saying you are not tall, and implying you couldn't see it. The "if", "were", and "would" make the phrase a hypothetical counterfactual, imagining that the statement is true and supplying a consequence, and this means that the statement is actually false (i.e. you were not at the beach). This meaning holds when speaking about a specific "you", like the person you're replying to. I'm sure there's a name for this grammatical construct, but I don't know it. The sentence may be incorrect, in which case the person you're speaking to could correct it with "I was at the beach, but I didn't see it", "I saw it by climbing on a rock", or "WTF I am Korean". It's possible the speaker may suspect their sentence is incorrect and be using it to ask a question indirectly, inviting correction. A more general meaning is possible when you're not talking about a specific person, but using the conditional to imagine a group of people or something, e.g. "If you were employed, you could afford it, and if you were on a benefit you could afford it, so most people can afford it." I think this usage is uncommon though, as there are much clearer ways to phrase that sort of thing. It's definitely not the usage you wrote. Source: Native English speaker, but not trained grammarian. Also wrote way too much because it's late at night and I can't be succinct.

alias_neo 5y ago

> bringing up the fact that you're South Korean for some reason It's completely normal to qualify one's perspective, and often beneficial. in fact for people to know whether your comment is an opinion, or based on some actual experience, knowledge, skill, etc, it adds value to the discussion. In the context of South Korean culture, it's absolutely useful to know the commenter is South Korean. If we're talking about tea, crumpets, or the rain, I might point out that I'm British.

seoulmetro 5y ago
If you were British, you would know where York is. It's not saying you don't know. It's saying that, this should be part of your knowledge based on you being British. I don't see how that's offensive.
- detaro 5y ago
  Because as others have already explained, that's not what that phrasing suggests. "If you were/you would" suggests that it's a purely theoretical perspective and thus strongly implies "you aren't". "If you were British..." and "If you are British..." have very different subtext.
  - seoulmetro 5y ago
    No they don't. No it doesn't.
- alias_neo 5y ago
  Nuance of the English language, but, "If you were British, you would know where York is", suggests I'm not British, and implies I don't know where York is. That specific form of the sentence has negative connotations and might be considered divisive in (British) English. It's essentially a challenge to my honesty, and had you said "if you are" rather than "if you were" it'd be a more amiable challenge, implying I should respond with proof that I know where York is, and not suggest I'm being dishonest. As I said, it's divisive, but to some may be considered offensive too. Just one word makes all of the difference. If you want to suggest I would know where York is by virtue of being British, you might say; "You will know where York is, because you're British" or "You must know where York is, you're British".