5 ms·

Apologies if it seems I'm replacing "true" with "objectively" and "reality." This wasn't my intent. I used them with their dictionary definitions, and what I w

Apologies if it seems I'm replacing "true" with "objectively" and "reality." This wasn't my intent. I used them with their dictionary definitions, and what I wrote ought to make sense if taken that way. Your argument here seems to defend the validation of people's feelings. If my point is accurate, you argue, then how people feel doesn't matter. Instead, consider what makes people feel bad about their general situation; if the cause of low sentiment isn't economic, then an improved economic situation won't improve sentiment. It's important to tease out these things. Lumping everything together may allow us to "legitimize" negative feelings, but it doesn't give us a clear view of the causes, prohibiting our ability to consider viable improvements.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
The way you're using these words is at best sloppy, something akin to weasel words that position yourself as an authority and others as merely biased observers. What does it mean for a someone's belief that they are one mishap from financial disaster to be "objectively relevant?" Are you saying they're wrong about their own precarity, or simply wrong to feel bad about it? It's certainly relevant to them that they feel this way. Whether it aligns with a measurable metric is another question but not the one they were talking about. Similarly, what "things beyond reality" are people using to come to these conclusions? Astrology? Are they hallucinating their dire financial situation and the penurious chasm beneath them? Using the words correctly doesn't mean you are using them rightly. In this case you are not.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  Like I said, you’re pitching my argument as, “People feeling bad is not valid.” This isn’t what I said. At this point, only someone who wants to fight would read what I wrote as you have. A more reasonable interpretation of what I’ve written would be that sentiment may not be entirely associated with economic safety. “It is unlikely that sentiment would improve if unemployment dropped further”, would be a good illustration of my argument, for example (a point you alluded to elsewhere in this submission). I recommend trying to read what I wrote with a less aggressive agenda, because the way you’re approaching this interaction is too hostile for a reasonable person to presume positive intent. It seems more likely to involve your own bad mood than anything I’ve actually written.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Sorry for coming in hot, I believe you that that's not what you intended. But even rereading it now, as charitably as I can, it still to me seems to say something pretty close to "people feeling bad is not valid." Even knowing what you intended, that's what it says. So idk, maybe we both have something to learn here regardless of my bad mood or whatever.
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      Aren’t you doing here what you claim I was doing earlier? “That’s what it says” instead of, “that’s how I interpreted it”?

giraffe_lady 3y ago

The way you're using these words is at best sloppy, something akin to weasel words that position yourself as an authority and others as merely biased observers. What does it mean for a someone's belief that they are one mishap from financial disaster to be "objectively relevant?" Are you saying they're wrong about their own precarity, or simply wrong to feel bad about it? It's certainly relevant to them that they feel this way. Whether it aligns with a measurable metric is another question but not the one they were talking about. Similarly, what "things beyond reality" are people using to come to these conclusions? Astrology? Are they hallucinating their dire financial situation and the penurious chasm beneath them? Using the words correctly doesn't mean you are using them rightly. In this case you are not.

redcobra762 3y ago
Like I said, you’re pitching my argument as, “People feeling bad is not valid.” This isn’t what I said. At this point, only someone who wants to fight would read what I wrote as you have. A more reasonable interpretation of what I’ve written would be that sentiment may not be entirely associated with economic safety. “It is unlikely that sentiment would improve if unemployment dropped further”, would be a good illustration of my argument, for example (a point you alluded to elsewhere in this submission). I recommend trying to read what I wrote with a less aggressive agenda, because the way you’re approaching this interaction is too hostile for a reasonable person to presume positive intent. It seems more likely to involve your own bad mood than anything I’ve actually written.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Sorry for coming in hot, I believe you that that's not what you intended. But even rereading it now, as charitably as I can, it still to me seems to say something pretty close to "people feeling bad is not valid." Even knowing what you intended, that's what it says. So idk, maybe we both have something to learn here regardless of my bad mood or whatever.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    Aren’t you doing here what you claim I was doing earlier? “That’s what it says” instead of, “that’s how I interpreted it”?