3 ms·

I don't know how you're improving your case here at all. >> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. > Can you cite any e

I don't know how you're improving your case here at all. >> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. > Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this. And at this point, you decided to react with snark. Here's why that was wrong: 1. George Floyd is an example of what happened to George Floyd, so why would he ask for an example of what happened to George Floyd? Is that arguing in good faith? 2. Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd? This is why his question was clear to everyone. 3. George Floyd's case was actually irrelevant to the thrust of the discussion, which was the perils of refusing to allow a search of property at a border.

lisper 4y ago
> Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd? It seemed improbable, but profound ignorance is not exactly unheard of on the internet. In any case, it seemed manifestly true that /u/ch4s3 had either not seen or chosen to ignore the example that /u/xnyan provided because he didn't refer to it at all. "Can you provide an example?" is what you say when you think no example has been provided. It is not what you say when you are aware that an example has been provided but you think the example is deficient. What you say in that case is something like: "The example you provided is deficient because... Can you provide a better one?" > Here's why that was wrong: Here is why you are wrong: if you give someone an example and they respond by saying "Can you give me an example?" you should not be surprised when you leave your interlocutor somewhat nonplussed, and you should be equally unsurprised when they, being human, respond with a certain amount of frustration at your inability to communicate your intentions more clearly. It's like if you gave a homeless person a pizza and they respond by saying, "Can you give me a pizza?" Dude, I just gave you a pizza, what more do you want? Oh, this is a ham-and-pineapple pizza. I wanted pepperoni! If you think a snarky response is inappropriate in a situation like that, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
- MockObject 4y ago
  Isn't it a bit more like Alice: "Statement A. Example A. Statement B." Bob: "Can you give me an example?" You: "She just gave you example A!!!!" Everyone else: "Bob must be asking for example B."
  - lisper 4y ago
    No, because Statement B in this analogy would be: "Your rights don't mean shit to cops."
- MockObject 4y ago
  If he didn't know what happened to George Floyd, he wouldn't have asked "for an example". He would have asked "who is George Floyd?" People don't ask for examples of proper nouns. This is why fluent English speakers understood clearly that he wasn't asking for an example of George Floyd, and therefore was asking for an example of something else, an example that had not been provided.

lisper 4y ago

> Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd? It seemed improbable, but profound ignorance is not exactly unheard of on the internet. In any case, it seemed manifestly true that /u/ch4s3 had either not seen or chosen to ignore the example that /u/xnyan provided because he didn't refer to it at all. "Can you provide an example?" is what you say when you think no example has been provided. It is not what you say when you are aware that an example has been provided but you think the example is deficient. What you say in that case is something like: "The example you provided is deficient because... Can you provide a better one?" > Here's why that was wrong: Here is why you are wrong: if you give someone an example and they respond by saying "Can you give me an example?" you should not be surprised when you leave your interlocutor somewhat nonplussed, and you should be equally unsurprised when they, being human, respond with a certain amount of frustration at your inability to communicate your intentions more clearly. It's like if you gave a homeless person a pizza and they respond by saying, "Can you give me a pizza?" Dude, I just gave you a pizza, what more do you want? Oh, this is a ham-and-pineapple pizza. I wanted pepperoni! If you think a snarky response is inappropriate in a situation like that, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

MockObject 4y ago
Isn't it a bit more like Alice: "Statement A. Example A. Statement B." Bob: "Can you give me an example?" You: "She just gave you example A!!!!" Everyone else: "Bob must be asking for example B."
- lisper 4y ago
  No, because Statement B in this analogy would be: "Your rights don't mean shit to cops."
MockObject 4y ago
If he didn't know what happened to George Floyd, he wouldn't have asked "for an example". He would have asked "who is George Floyd?" People don't ask for examples of proper nouns. This is why fluent English speakers understood clearly that he wasn't asking for an example of George Floyd, and therefore was asking for an example of something else, an example that had not been provided.