2 ms·
The wording is slightly imprecise (if they had said "accelerated subjugation of" it would have been perfectly accurate), and a bit jargon-y; but can't you just
by aguaviva 2y ago
The wording is slightly imprecise (if they had said "accelerated subjugation of" it would have been perfectly accurate), and a bit jargon-y; but can't you just go with it?
The degree of indignation you're expressing here at this ancillary snippet (as opposed to the historical genocide itself, and the continuing injustices suffered by the survivors' descendants to this very day) seems to be in itself rather cringe.
- timr 2y ago> The degree of indignation you're expressing here at this ancillary snippet...seems to be in itself rather cringe. I am not expressing "indignation" -- I don't think the author was unfair to me. I'm not even remotely upset. I just think it was a silly and unnecessary inclusion (in your words: "ancillary") that detracts from the piece.
- aguaviva 2y ago"Indignation" was a poor choice of wording, then -- I take it back. Still - it does seem to be such a trifling fault with the article that it seems strange that it would be seen as worth devoting the time and energy to call out. When I come across minor hiccups like this (either in something I'm reading, or when someone is giving a talk) I usually just say to myself: "Mmm -- but was it in good faith at least? Not too preachy / overbearing? Yes? Then let's move on ..."