4 ms·
> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty con
by alexashka 1mo ago
> an ugly national security line that we're all too ashamed to admit exists
We're all ashamed, apparently?? What do they call this, projections of a guilty conscience?
- bigyabai 1mo agoJingoism. America loves the free market until TikTok and Chinese cars enter it, then it's kicking and screaming all the way down.
- alexashka 1mo agoYou're not getting it. There is no 'we', there is no 'America'. These are propaganda terms. When you use them, you bolster the people who mindlessly repeat slogans and frustrate those who don't. It's a lose-lose.
- bigyabai 1mo agoMy point was to relate the American POV of the judge with the America-optimistic POV of the parent comment. Using "we" and "America" in that context is perfectly clarifying, I'm not beholden to pivot to your pet nitpick.
- alexashka 1mo agoYou're not beholden to make any effort to understand me or anyone else, that's a given. Here is what an LLM thinks about what you've done: > The “we” is doing a lot of rhetorical work: it turns what could have been stated as “the U.S. government doesn't openly admit this” into the much broader and more dramatic “we Americans are collectively unwilling to admit it.” I hope that helps. Or is the LLM also nitpicking and failing to understand your 'perfectly clarifying' remarks? Feel free to copy paste and ask an LLM yourself, all I did was ask it 'who is the 'we' referring to?' and copy pasted original parent and your reply.
- vinetnova 1mo ago[flagged]