Rich white woman claims parts of America aren't safe

[DMC]

What was dishonest about the paraphrase? What would be the point of just repeating myself word for word in a second post if the entire point was to illustrate the direct meaning behind the sarcasm?

If I wanted to do it your way I might as well have just replied "Nuh uh!"

Read the quote I altered. Did you create a strawman or not?

it's also becoming popular to try to evade responsibility for your own comments by the use of the emoji..

[Spurminator]

But you didn't do it to achieve greater clarity. You did it to debunk the "strawman" claim levied on you by Nathan. Nathan didn't say he didn't understand your comment. You didn't say "allow me to rephrase that".

Plus, when you use sarcasm, paraphrasing as you did doesn't accurately show any sarcasm was ever used. So you didn't really paraphrase yourself, you simply dropped the sarcasm and pretended that's what Nathan was responding to. It's becoming quite common to see blatant dishonesty disguised as a paraphrase when the real quote is apparent for all to read, on the same page.

Are you... Are you okay?

Look, just tell me what YOU think my sarcastic comment implied that was misrepresented in my paraphrase.

[Spurminator]

Read the quote I altered. Did you create a strawman or not?

No. But I'm open to hearing what you think the strawman was if you're done with the Captain Semantics act.

[Spurminator]

it's also becoming popular to try to evade responsibility for your own comments by the use of the emoji..

7 posts above mine:

"paraphrased"
"semantics"

Those two sentences aren't even remotely similar. The first is a strawman and the 2nd is you trying to recover from it by rewording it. Do you think Nathan's response was to your paraphrase?

Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself?

Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.

[DMC]

Are you... Are you okay?

Look, just tell me what YOU think my sarcastic comment implied that was misrepresented in my paraphrase.

Your comments implied that Nathan was claiming all races are born on a level playing field. Nathan never made such a claim. Therefore you created a straw man. This is made obvious in post #72 where I used your original statement, that Nathan was responding to, instead of the "paraphrasing" attempt by you in which you somehow disregarded the fact that Nathan was responding to your original statement. Nathan called you out for creating a straw man. You then used your 2nd version instead of your first version.

Whether or not your 1st statement was sarcasm is irrelevant. Your paraphrase of yourself totally reversed the statement you made, yet you feel like it's somehow the same statement.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.

[DMC]

7 posts above mine:

You also cannot understand sarcasm. (my spinning emoji).

Allow me to paraphrase.

It's very uncommon for people to hide behind emojis in order to avoid responsibility for their statements.

[Th'Pusher]

Nothing better than a pedantic troll tbh.

[Spurminator]

Your comments implied that Nathan was claiming all races are born on a level playing field. Nathan never made such a claim. Therefore you created a straw man.

This is made obvious in post #72 where I used your original statement, that Nathan was responding to, instead of the "paraphrasing" attempt by you in which you somehow disregarded the fact that Nathan was responding to your original statement. Nathan called you out for creating a straw man. You then used your 2nd version instead of your first version.

Whether or not your 1st statement was sarcasm is irrelevant. Your paraphrase of yourself totally reversed the statement you made, yet you feel like it's somehow the same statement.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.

Christ, dude...

Nathan stated "Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

"You're right" directly responds to this statement. (If you know you're reading a sarcastic post, you would read "You're right" to mean "You're wrong.") The next step when you claim someone is wrong is to support that opinion.

To do so, I offered the point that people who are born black in America often tend to have it "that bad." Of course, given that I had opted for sarcasm in this response (introduced by the words "You're right"), I worded the supporting point sarcastically as well: "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

As we've established with how "You're right" = "You're wrong" in a sarcastic sentence, the sarcastic form of a statement may involve the reversal of some words from affirmative to negative. So you would read this as "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races" (which you would reasonably interpret to be blacks, assuming you're aware of slavery).

If we agree that the sincere form of "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" is "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races (i.e. blacks)," then a logical next step is to validate the paraphrase: "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

not everyone is born on an equal playing field today ---> born at a disadvantage today
and history has had impact ---> This country's history of racism causes
some particular races ---> people of color

So what you're reading as "reversing [my] statement" is actually just a natural byproduct of making a sarcastic statement non-sarcastic and then paraphrasing to improve structure and conciseness. There is nothing of substance added or removed between the two posts.

While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.

[Nathan89]

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.

While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.

It's definitely nit-picking and if I were to make a quick decision on the matter I'd side with you on the paraphrasing issue. But this post by DMC puts it into perspective. He is correct imo. The subtle change of those two quotes changes it away from a strawman to a counter.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

100% strawman. I agree with his statement about what this sarcastic statement is inferring. At the same time I recognize that everything you said is actually the opposite of what you believe.

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

This however is a counter to why I shouldn't make the comment about other races.

So even though it kinda says the same thing the subtle difference does change things. I would've never replied to your second comment with "strawman". It just doesn't fit.

[AaronY]

"If you make a decision then commit to it for life. That's what us smart folks do."

The emoticons really hide how stupid and impressionable you are.

From one life explaining re ed set of talking points to the complete opposite other like a real goober with no mind of his own. How embarrassing.

[DMC]

Christ, dude...

Nathan stated "Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

"You're right" directly responds to this statement. (If you know you're reading a sarcastic post, you would read "You're right" to mean "You're wrong.") The next step when you claim someone is wrong is to support that opinion.

To do so, I offered the point that people who are born black in America often tend to have it "that bad." Of course, given that I had opted for sarcasm in this response (introduced by the words "You're right"), I worded the supporting point sarcastically as well: "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

As we've established with how "You're right" = "You're wrong" in a sarcastic sentence, the sarcastic form of a statement may involve the reversal of some words from affirmative to negative. So you would read this as "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races" (which you would reasonably interpret to be blacks, assuming you're aware of slavery).

If we agree that the sincere form of "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" is "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races (i.e. blacks)," then a logical next step is to validate the paraphrase: "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

not everyone is born on an equal playing field today ---> born at a disadvantage today
and history has had impact ---> This country's history of racism causes
some particular races ---> people of color

So what you're reading as "reversing [my] statement" is actually just a natural byproduct of making a sarcastic statement non-sarcastic and then paraphrasing to improve structure and conciseness. There is nothing of substance added or removed between the two posts.

While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.

TL;DR

The sarcastic response was also a straw man. Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.

[spurraider21]

Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.

That's just flat out lying. The right has this tendency to want to change the words they are arguing against. You see it time after time here. It's as if the actual quote is no longer available and you cannot recall exactly what was said, but the truth is that you can see plainly what was said and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you alter the words.

You're not alone.

[Spurminator]

TL;DR

I bet you did, though.

Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.

spurraider beat me to it

[DMC]

sideline chirp

Didn't ask you got

[DMC]

I bet you did, though.



spurraider beat me to it

You'd lose that bet.

You and Philo not understanding "indicated"

Indicate:

1 Point out; show.

‘dotted lines indicate the text's margins’

[spurraider21]

Didn't ask you got

Oh didn’t realize that discussion was all in the form of pm

[DMC]

Sideline chirp 2

Philo with another false equivalence, smug as if he discovered something.

[Spurminator]

You'd lose that bet.

You and Philo not understanding "indicated"

Indicate:

1 Point out; show.

‘dotted lines indicate the text's margins’

Oh, it all makes sense now, I should have just said

"Me: (INDICATED) This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

DMCmantics

[DMC]

Oh, it all makes sense now, I should have just said

"Me: (INDICATED) This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

DMCmantics

A straw man isn't based on an indication but on a claim of another person's position. If I asked you "where's waldo" and you pointed toward a door, I could say you indicated waldo was behind the door. I couldn't paraphrase that you said waldo was behind the door.

But you know this already. You're just cornered again and flailing. Nathan told you that you created a straw man. You did. Philo to the rescue with false equivalence doesn't save you. Philo is known to be long on drywall and short on stud, he's not that sharp.

Did any of you do your own schoolwork or is everything these days "cram for test"?

[Spurminator]

Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it.

One page down...

[Spurminator]

But you know this already. You're just cornered again and flailing.

I am perfectly secure in my correctness, as explained in my pedantic wall of text you pretended not to read so you wouldn't have to respond to it. (Not that I'm interested in your response, nor any further effort to explain my post which you have now spent 24 hours obsessing over. I'm content to continue mocking you for pulling semantic disputes out of your ass.)

[DMC]

I am perfectly secure in my correctness, as explained in my pedantic wall of text you pretended not to read so you wouldn't have to respond to it. (Not that I'm interested in your response, nor any further effort to explain my post which you have now spent 24 hours obsessing over. I'm content to continue mocking you for pulling semantic disputes out of your ass.)

Can you summarize the WOT?

[Th'Pusher]

Can you summarize the WOT?

Why are you still pretending you didn’t read it? Everyone knows that a pedantic little troll like you is incapable of not reading that WOT.

[Trill Clinton]

Not even our soldiers are safe from attacks of racism

[Pavlov]

Not even our soldiers are safe from attacks of racism

lol white people picking a fight at Cheddars.