everything you’ve said in this specific comment to which i’m responding is good faith interpretation of what he said. but this isn’t the whole of what you’re claiming he is saying and implying.
Of course it’s not the whole of my position. The comment you are replying to is just one facet of the problems with Doctorow’s stance, which you misunderstood as indicated in the comment prior.
It’s on you to show that. I quoted him. Those words have meaning. He restated his points in multiple different ways so there is no question about his thesis. You can’t cling to this strawman claim without actually showing a difference between his words and the ideas I am opposing.
Like a politician, Doctorow is telling people what they want to hear. They want to be told they don’t need to make a potentially sacrificial personal transformation or accept the burden of personal responsibility by opting-out of being an enabler of an oppressor.
Conversely, I tell people what they /need/ to hear, as brutal as it may be. Which is aligned with Rutger Bregman’s ideology.
It’s on you to show that. I don’t believe I added anything to his claims. I’m not going to quote the whole (very wordy) article. I quoted bits and attacked his thesis.
I don’t know what you mean by “re-interpret”. I interpretted his article once because I only read it once. Of course I can only have my own interpretation. I am not a mind reader. If Doctorow feels he is being misinterpretted, he can revise or add clarity.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying. what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”. you chose to put words in his mouth. that’s bad faith.
everything you’ve said in this specific comment to which i’m responding is good faith interpretation of what he said. but this isn’t the whole of what you’re claiming he is saying and implying.
Of course it’s not the whole of my position. The comment you are replying to is just one facet of the problems with Doctorow’s stance, which you misunderstood as indicated in the comment prior.
I did not misunderstand. you are intentionally misinterpreting him.
It’s on you to show that. I quoted him. Those words have meaning. He restated his points in multiple different ways so there is no question about his thesis. You can’t cling to this strawman claim without actually showing a difference between his words and the ideas I am opposing.
Like a politician, Doctorow is telling people what they want to hear. They want to be told they don’t need to make a potentially sacrificial personal transformation or accept the burden of personal responsibility by opting-out of being an enabler of an oppressor.
Conversely, I tell people what they /need/ to hear, as brutal as it may be. Which is aligned with Rutger Bregman’s ideology.
and yet you still added to it. your bad faith interpretation of his statements needs no further evidence for anyone who has read this conversation.
It’s on you to show that. I don’t believe I added anything to his claims. I’m not going to quote the whole (very wordy) article. I quoted bits and attacked his thesis.
it’s prima facie: you weren’t simply quoting him, you were re-interpreting what he was saying.
I don’t know what you mean by “re-interpret”. I interpretted his article once because I only read it once. Of course I can only have my own interpretation. I am not a mind reader. If Doctorow feels he is being misinterpretted, he can revise or add clarity.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying. what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”. you chose to put words in his mouth. that’s bad faith.