I will happily admit my wording was a little sloppy here, but something tells me a strategy which is "I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but as a subject matter expert, I must protest your use of words here" is counterproductive.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I wonder what your opinion would be after reading the works of, or even watching the short illustration video of a talk Iain McGilchrist gave on his book. Here’s the video, but the book is a much much deeper dive that is recommended, Master and his Emissary.
maybe "able to discover the meaning of things going on in the world"? i get what you're saying and agree but yeah it's kind of hard to put it into just the right words i think
My dad loves to do pedantic language corrections *even when he completely agrees with me*. It's infuriating. now that I'm almost 40 I've started to push back on it because I realize it's an actual source of stress in my life and I just can't be arsed to deal with that.
I was an English teacher for over a decade and I wouldn't even be so pedantic. My basic rule is this - if you understand the meaning enough to 'correct' whatever was written (or said) then it doesn't need to be 'corrected'.
I think it's a clear statement on the point of critical thinking skills. Words will always be open to interpretation to some degree. Funny enough those arguing the point may be flexing their own critical thinking. Or getting a ruse out of you, who knows.
I think your show is great. I think you're someone who speaks with good intentions. For me, it's not critical thinking that started my inquisitiveness, it was curiosity. I've always been a curious person, not afraid to learn something new, or that I was previously ignorant about something
The easiest way to argue without creating one's own meaning is by arguing semantics. It offers the look and feel of meaning making, or coming from a place of meaning, without the substance.
FFS, not everyone is a great writer, you don't need to be one to put your thoughts out into the world.
Not to disparage your writing abilities. Which kinda illustrates my point: It's super easy to write something that others will misinterpret. If they're determined to misinterpret you, they will.
There's a wide variety of interpretations out there for "things going on in the world" from "carefully done experiment" to "this conspiracy theory I just picked up on Facebook." I know what you meant in the broader context of your work, but those words don't stand well on their own.
Is see your wish to have only followers see your posts as a wish to have your words read in a broader context. Certainly a completely valid wish but taking things out of context is one of the main weapons of trolls and pedants--I doubt they will be so easily denied.
I’ve been “well ackshually”’d enough times in that way and it always came out that the person doing it wanted desperately to disagree with me or my point or just make my life harder, but the point I was making was one they couldn’t be seen disagreeing with.
Yeah, exactly. I consider it one shading off from an ad homineim attack. It's not engaging with the point being made, it's attacking the originator of the claim or something OTHER than the claim in a disingenuous way to make the claim itself seem artificially weaker.
Is it straw man? Because strawman to me was always setting up such a week argument that it could easily be taken down. Now that I think about it more attacking wording feels more like just another variation on ad hominem.
Leave it up as a framed object lesson.
Point back at it as a "how to derail arguments you support and why not to do that." People need to be told to shift their habits and having lessons on why not to do the thing is useful.
Comments
https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain
Like, you're right and you worded it in a very common way.
not really your fault.
Not to disparage your writing abilities. Which kinda illustrates my point: It's super easy to write something that others will misinterpret. If they're determined to misinterpret you, they will.
It vibes as wanting to undermine your statement without undermining a point they can’t afford to be seen disagreeing with.
the people that rather focus on your grammar then your actual argument
I think it's important to use primary sources for actual data and avoid relying solely on op-ed pieces that tell you how to interpret the data.
Point back at it as a "how to derail arguments you support and why not to do that." People need to be told to shift their habits and having lessons on why not to do the thing is useful.