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.
so when you said “what he’s essentially saying” you were lying
Not at all. It’s very long and wordy article. It would be inefficient to requote the whole thing. I assume people have read it. It’s important to be concise in what I am responding to, and to transparently show my interpretation of what I read so someone has a chance to say “that’s not right” (which you have done, but failed to effectively support).
what you could have truthfully said is “i’m afraid he might mean”.
That would falsely misrepresent my confidence. I am confident that I have comprehended Doctorow as he intends.
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.
Not at all. It’s very long and wordy article. It would be inefficient to requote the whole thing. I assume people have read it. It’s important to be concise in what I am responding to, and to transparently show my interpretation of what I read so someone has a chance to say “that’s not right” (which you have done, but failed to effectively support).
That would falsely misrepresent my confidence. I am confident that I have comprehended Doctorow as he intends.
and I’m telling you that you have made a leap of logic
That’s a meaningless claim when you don’t articulate the “leap”.