4 ms·

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 "

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
      > It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason. An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all. > 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. Agreed. Good thing I didn't. > 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. They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second. So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > someone else jumped in Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.
        PierceJoy 4y ago
        > Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that. > Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting. And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking. > I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote. So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?

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
    > It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason. An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all. > 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. Agreed. Good thing I didn't. > 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. They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second. So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply. > someone else jumped in Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'. I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.
      - PierceJoy 4y ago
        > Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct. No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that. > Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting. And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking. > I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that. It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote. So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?