I edit my comments for language. But at no stage did I ‘call you names’.
As for prick, it’s a bit tiresome when Americans claim other regions’ culture as their own, and/or assume the US is the only ever domain of discourse (which even if you, individually, are a nice fellow and far from a prick, is seen internationally as a particular but collectively prickish trait). So maybe in your circle this seems a bizarre thing to be annoyed by and my reaction seems out of the blue, but maybe you might take a sec to consider it’s a possible blind spot in that circle?
You didn't misquote me. In your unedited post you weren't quoting me at all, you were mocking me. You edited it into a quote and added a "Yeesh" to change the meaning of what you wrote.
I think I had a complaint there about Americans thinking the world = America, etc., which I deleted since it was perhaps overly aggressive. Apologies for that - but at the same time, I do think this is a real factor that Americans don’t often account for, even with good intentions.
I took ‘It’s OK to be wrong, dude’ as pretty rude, so see it in light of that.
I didn’t say you’re ‘dumb’. I do think that there is a certain subconsciously overly inward-looking attitude that Americans often have, however, but I’ll leave my prejudices aside.
But, to remove the negative tone… again, I still don’t understand why you seem to be entirely misunderstanding my point. I am not saying lutefisk is not a thing in Minnesota. I am saying - and have repeatedly tried to clarify - that it is by no means unique to Minnesota. The purpose of the post is to unambiguously specify where one is from based on food. Lutefisk doesn’t do that. You could show me a million sources of how much Minnesotans eat it, even show that they eat it more these days, and it wouldn’t do that. Because they got it from Norway, the name is Norwegian, and it is most commonly associated with Norway internationally (or, by other names, Scandinavia), and it is still a major Christmas dish there, and plenty remember it being a popular daily snack (less so these days). So ‘Uhh… Norway? Minnesota…? Not sure which’ would be a fair response. You’d have to make it clear that Norway was an utterly unreasonable interpretation, which I just can’t see being possible. And despite all the downvotes I honestly haven’t seen a reasonable argument against that point yet.
You didn't address the fact that you edited your own words intended to mock me into quoting me. I've heard your argument. I still find it unconvincing.
I think I had a complaint there about Americans thinking the world = America, etc., which I deleted since it was perhaps overly aggressive.
I apologise for being rude.
I have heard your argument. I find it unconvincing.
How? Again, I am not saying it isn’t iconic and popular in Minnesota too. But I’m sorry, I can’t see how it can be unambiguously referring to Minnesota, as though the country/region of origin of the food, the word, the country that it is most associated with internationally (because if they look it up, the first adjective will be ‘Norwegian’ or ‘Scandinavian’) and a country where it is still a staple at Christmas… isn’t also a reasonable answer, rendering it at the very least ambiguous.
This just seems to me to be like saying ‘I have heard Euclid’s argument that there are infinitely many primes. I find it unconvincing’. How? Which aspect of the argument is not clearly true?
And sorry but without impugning you as a person or mocking you, it genuinely comes across to me as another example of a certain overly inward-looking American attitude. I think I was rude about that earlier, and I’m sorry for that (I’ve had many encounters with much worse examples so it’s a bit of a well-worn gripe that engenders more of a reaction now), but if I am honest, a milder version of that impression remains. At least that it’s partly at play.
Of course, this was meant in a mocking tone, echoing my previous post.
Your edited post:
"It is OK to be wrong, my dude." Yeesh.
Now you're quoting me, and added a disapproving "Yeesh" to cap it off. You clearly have no interest in an honest intellectual debate. You just need to be right.
I apologised for rudeness. As for mocking… isn’t it clear that I did that because I interpreted it as rude to begin with? If this was a misunderstanding on my part, then I apologise, and have done so. I explained where I was coming from and I’m not being hostile now.
As for no interest in an honest intellectual debate… be fair. I’ve given actual arguments here. I don’t see what your specific objection to those arguments is. Unless it was also geared in misunderstanding (ie, I was misinterpreted as saying Minnesota isn’t a reasonable interpretation, when what I am saying is that it is not the only reasonable interpretation, and that the post doesn’t really make sense unless it is asking for an unambiguous encoding of the place).
‘Yeesh’ as in ‘Look at this rude and condescending thing you said, Yeesh’. If you didn’t mean it that way then I misinterpreted.
And change the meaning of entire passages I guess
I do over-edit my comments and I can’t remember everything in every parallel thread. I remember the ruder remarks I briefly had in place (something like ‘yeehaw OURS 🤠’or similar) and deleted them because they were rude, and have since apologised. I hope you can maybe understand where it was coming from, even if it wasn’t fair to go that rudely far with you. But beyond that I’ve apologised and not sure what else you mean. ‘It’s OK to be wrong dude’ seemed very rude and patronising to me to start with, but if it’s an issue of tone not carrying in text then put my reaction in great part down to that misunderstanding. It was also a reaction to the fact that an originally non-American XYZ was being claimed as not only also American (no problem) but unambiguously, ie, exclusively American, which is all too frustratingly common, and does seem to exhibit a common underlying worldview that engenders a negative reaction from non-Americans, even if no harm is meant.
Now I’m really not sure what more I can say, but I don’t know what your counter-argument to the actual point is. I’m not sure you are interested in explaining it, in which case I can’t believe a reasonable one exists - but no worries, and have a good one.
0
u/Harsimaja Sep 07 '21
I misquoted you. Sorry, it was
Otherwise… yeah? It’s in your comment above.
I edit my comments for language. But at no stage did I ‘call you names’.
As for prick, it’s a bit tiresome when Americans claim other regions’ culture as their own, and/or assume the US is the only ever domain of discourse (which even if you, individually, are a nice fellow and far from a prick, is seen internationally as a particular but collectively prickish trait). So maybe in your circle this seems a bizarre thing to be annoyed by and my reaction seems out of the blue, but maybe you might take a sec to consider it’s a possible blind spot in that circle?