3 ms·

I like how the phrase shift the guilt to the reader if he does not understand.

• pas 4y ago
  why is there guilt in simply not knowing something? presumably the less knowledgeable commenters are not responsible for policy, it's not their moral duty to know this? (even if arguably we as a species are the only ones with agency to act to keep ourselves from overexploitation of the natural resources and from falling into sociological traps, and thus we all are partially responsible individually, and in many ethics it's our duty to keep ourselves informed to be able to pick representatives/leaders and to vote with our wallets)
  • kilgnad 4y ago
    You don't get it. Let me explain. And when I'm done explaining you will understand. He means the reader will feel guilty for not understanding rather then blaming me for his lack of understanding due to a poorly worded explanation. Either I'm guilty of a bad explanation or he's guilty of being too stupid to understand. Which is it? By declaring beforehand the fact that he will understand as a consequence of the explanation I subtly connote that if such understanding isn't achieved then the problem isn't my explanation.