Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

> Quotes are not always scare quotes. In fact, they are most often not scare quotes. And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written.

> I did not. You'll notice that the parent brought up Harvard, not me. Higher education was one of their talking points I was responding to, however in no way was my argument limited to higher education.

I don't think you quite understand here. The purpose of bringing Harvard, is to talk about how Harvard discriminates against jews and asians in their admission process.

This is a common thing that gets brought up. Maybe you weren't aware of the context.

View on HN

I understand exactly what happened. The parent brought up an example of how Jews and Asians were discriminated against as a means to try and make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians. In reply, I said why I believe we focus more on discrimination against black/latino/gay people. No one is ignoring discrimination against Asians.

> make it seem like "woke" people are ignoring discrimination against Jews and Asians.

So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'.

That is what they were attempting to express. And you have zero disagreement that this is what they were trying to say.

> So then you agree that the other person was attempting to communicate the following: 'express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'

In that specific sentence, they weren't stating any opinion about the justification. They were stating what their prototype woke person is thinking. Now based on everything else they wrote, it's obvious they disagree, but that wasn't the point of that sentence.

You're not making any substantive points here. Basically just arguing semantics. They made their points, I addressed them. We obviously don't agree, but there was no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

> I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say, and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason.

The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them.

You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.

> It seemed like you were incorrectly understanding what the other person was attempting to say,

I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply.

> and being pretty opinionated about it, for not much reason.

An interesting reply from someone who is making no substantive arguments at all.

> The point of all of this, is that you don't have to mis-interpret someone else's statements in order to disagree with them.

Agreed. Good thing I didn't.

> You can simply agree with the clarification that someone later gave, agree that this is what they said, and then state you thoughts on that clarification.

They gave no clarification. If you actually look at the thread, someone else jumped in to try and claim the parent wrote something they didn't. The parent has not been part of this at all. Now you've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Just think about that for a second.

So again, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

> I wasn't, as I clearly laid out in my last reply.

> someone else jumped in

Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct.

The point of all of this, is that they were trying to say the following, which someone else clarified as : 'if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination'.

I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that.

Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.

> Yes you were wrong, and and that other person was correct.

No, I was not wrong. If you actually read the thread, you would see that there was no misunderstanding. Continuing to reply isn't going to change that.

> Multiple other people here are not interpreting the statement how you are interpreting it. So to everyone else, it was clear, and you seem to be the one mis-interpreting.

And by multiple people, you mean you and the one other? Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments. Shocking.

> I think it is pretty clear that the original poster was saying something similar to that.

It's clear that the original poster was saying exactly what they wrote.

So as I said, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Because you're multiple replies in, and have accomplished precisely nothing. You've jumped in to make your own little interpretation of someone else's interpretation of someone else's comment. Are you seriously oblivious to how ridiculous this is?

"Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments."

I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.

Are you aware your post history is viewable?

There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.

I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological.

There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.

There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions, which are well-outlined in your writing, and then ran with them, which is funny because that’s what you accused me of.

Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?

What did I say which was ideological?

> Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments.

I don't really care either way on this topic acceptance criteria in schools. I just don't like it when people misunderstand other people's arguments and refuse to accept reasonable clarifications.

> have accomplished precisely nothing

You could have just accepted the reasonable clarification, with WhoOhWhyQ said, which is "overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination", and gone on from there.

> to how ridiculous this is?

You could have just gone with the clarification which was helpfully offered. No ridiculousness necessary.

No clarifications were needed because there was no misunderstanding. You've created a misunderstanding out of thin air, and then spent multiple replies trying to defend it.

At this point it’s quite clear that you really just want to have the last word. You haven’t contributed anything of substance to this thread, but will somehow feel emotionally fulfilled if you have the last comment.

So go ahead. Reply and tell me how wrong I am again. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)

> So go ahead. Reply. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)

I'd recommend that you read up on hacker news's terms of service, because your comments like this seem to frequently ignore them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

> My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)

And with that lovely validation, I am out.

Why are you this afraid to actually address the arguments?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com