3 ms·
From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril): > "calls to censor misinformation i
by cxr 4y ago
From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril):
> "calls to censor misinformation in media"[...] are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation?
No, they weren't saying that.
> and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring?
Also no.
- toofy 4y agowhen considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
- cxr 4y agoNothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
- toofy 4y agoi wasn't asking for subtext, i was asking so it would be clear and _not_ vagueness. i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
- cxr 4y agoYou asked explicitly what the other person was implying. If you ask that and then say that you weren't asking about any subtext, then one of us has some misunderstanding about the meaning of these words—and that person is not me. (This comment by me, for example, is definitely imbued with subtext.) Separately, put some effort into your attempts to have a discussion, please. I.e., beyond the bare minimum that it takes to type one or two sentences and press "reply" without giving it much more thought.
- toofy 4y agoi asked: > what do you think they were implying? …because in the previous comment you felt confident enough to answer for them. you said: > No, they weren't saying that. is asking what you think they meant unreasonable?
- cxr 4y agoYes. The entire question is predicated on there being a subtext. I answered that: assume the words they wrote were what they meant. Believing that "[what] they meant" was something besides that or that there was something else that "they were implying" is to believe that there was a subtext by definition.