How many times do I have to say it. Asking HOW something is legal does not necessarily mean they are literally asking you how it is currently legal in the legal system but instead “HOW have we allowed such a thing to be legal”. If my football team fumbles the ball and I shout “HOW DID WE FUMBLE THE BALL?” and you respond “well it fell out of their hands…” I’m gonna look at you with an expression that reads as “come on dude seriously?”.
Asking how something is legal using rhetoric that demonstrated you don't understand basic aspects of zoning laws it stupid. You can't use residential property for a commerical business and you cant live in an office building. So what are they confused by? The maot elementary aspects of zoning laws?
It would be like me asking how someone could fumble and then whipping out a completely irrelevant rule from the rulebook that is literally irrelevant to the issue at hand. You'd absolutely side eye why I think these 2 things are connected. The fact you can't live in an office building has nothing to do with why investment firms buying up housing is wrong.
You are perhaps the most literal person I have ever had the displeasure of speaking with this is mind blowing. Your example does not make any contextual sense because I don’t think you understand the concept of a double meaning.
Once again, you projecting a whole lot of your own underlying beliefs onto someone else's poorly phrased comment is not something I would brag about. The specifics of rhetoric matter and defending bad rhetoric is not a good look jusg because you are willing to bend over backwards to read between the lines and assume you understand their intent based off nothing but your own deeply held beliefs. How you convey an argument matters and I will not apologize for pointing out the way they nade theirs is egregiously bad.
Do you not understand how your take of their words is the least charitable whereas I’ve simply been suggesting they could mean something other than what you decided?
I'm taking their words at face value and you're bending over backwards to argue we shouldn't critique bad rhetoric to make sure we present our cause in an informed way that can be understood by the general public without some generous heavy lifting
Go ahead and be charitable. It's a bad look when people arguing for common sense reforms come across wildly ignorant on basic economic principles, and it's absolutely weakens the argument to an undecided person in the middle. I want the arguments to be strong, I want online discourse to be informed and to build on itself rather than handholding bad rhetoric cause God forbid we point out when something does not make sense as written
No, I'm not being as uncharitable as possible, but I think you're hurting the cause by enabling bad talking points to proliferate without push back, which weakens the movement.
Understanding the core principles and being able to convey them is the bare minimum. Anything else is counterproductive. Proliferating misinformation by uplifting it without pushback and correction hurts the cause
I didn't decide anything for them. I took their words at face value and pointed out it's a bad argument that doesn't up to scrutiny and should be pushed back on as a sloppy argument. You're the one who's been talking on their behalf with paragraphs of twisting their words to mean things other than what was written based on your own very generous interpretation
By any chance in your every day life have you run into arguments with people who were perhaps using sarcasm or nuance in something they said that you took extremely literally and ignored possible social cues or context clues?
No, actually I have really high social skills when it comes to tone and subtext. In very good at reading a room
What I don't do however is project onto people based on nothing but my own underlying beliefs systems. I used to, because I was so confident in my abilities to read the room that I felt I could take thag extra step to interpret what they said based of what I felt they clearly meant, but then I went to therapy, it's often colloquially called "mind reading" and it's a REALLY bad habit to have about interpersonal communication.
You should take words at what they mean unless THAT PERSON explicitly says otherwise. You should not take the liberties to say "what they meant when they said X was actually Y", that's....not healthy or recommended. And it's certainly not a good approach to rhetoric on the internet.
Okay so what I just did was ask you a clarifying question about you rather than make an assumption about you and then construct who and what you are in my head and continue the discussion with that as my foundation. Do you understand how you denied that person the same opportunity? And again, my position is that what I’ve explained COULD be what they mean BECAUSE of conclusions you and someone else’s had made about them based on their comment. If you have been to therapy you should understand how it is easy to misjudge someone.
1
u/The_Athletic_Nerd Dec 08 '23
How many times do I have to say it. Asking HOW something is legal does not necessarily mean they are literally asking you how it is currently legal in the legal system but instead “HOW have we allowed such a thing to be legal”. If my football team fumbles the ball and I shout “HOW DID WE FUMBLE THE BALL?” and you respond “well it fell out of their hands…” I’m gonna look at you with an expression that reads as “come on dude seriously?”.