6 ms·

I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you

I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here, but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, as you say, so for this reason I assumed higher education was the focus.

PierceJoy 4y ago
> I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here I'm really not. > but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. Maybe the part you missed is where I stated > It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.
- WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
  "And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written." I disagree, but who really cares anyways. Have a nice one! Edit: "This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education." Alright, that's cool.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. I don't think you quite understand here. The purpose of bringing Harvard, is to talk about how Harvard discriminates against jews and asians in their admission process. This is a common thing that gets brought up. Maybe you weren't aware of the context.
  - PierceJoy 4y ago
    I understand exactly what happened. The parent brought up an example of how Jews and Asians were discriminated against as a means to try and make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. In reply, I said why I believe we focus more on discrimination against black/latino/gay people. No one is ignoring discrimination against Asians.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. That is what they were attempting to express. And you have zero disagreement that this is what they were trying to say.
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        > So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination' In that specific sentence, they weren't stating any opinion about the justification. They were stating what their prototype woke person is thinking. Now based on everything else they wrote, it's obvious they disagree, but that wasn't the point of that sentence. You're not making any substantive points here. Basically just arguing semantics. They made their points, I addressed them. We obviously don't agree, but there was no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
        stale2002 4y ago
        > I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason. The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them. You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.

PierceJoy 4y ago

> I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement. Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here I'm really not. > but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. Maybe the part you missed is where I stated > It makes more sense focus on underrepresented groups than overrepresented groups when trying to address systemic issues. It’s more efficient. This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education.

WhyOhWhyQ 4y ago
"And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written." I disagree, but who really cares anyways. Have a nice one! Edit: "This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education." Alright, that's cool.
stale2002 4y ago
> Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written. > I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education. I don't think you quite understand here. The purpose of bringing Harvard, is to talk about how Harvard discriminates against jews and asians in their admission process. This is a common thing that gets brought up. Maybe you weren't aware of the context.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  I understand exactly what happened. The parent brought up an example of how Jews and Asians were discriminated against as a means to try and make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. In reply, I said why I believe we focus more on discrimination against black/latino/gay people. No one is ignoring discrimination against Asians.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. That is what they were attempting to express. And you have zero disagreement that this is what they were trying to say.
    - PierceJoy 4y ago
      > So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination' In that specific sentence, they weren't stating any opinion about the justification. They were stating what their prototype woke person is thinking. Now based on everything else they wrote, it's obvious they disagree, but that wasn't the point of that sentence. You're not making any substantive points here. Basically just arguing semantics. They made their points, I addressed them. We obviously don't agree, but there was no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason. The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them. You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.