• Max@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Again, I’m not intending to make a value judgment or suggesting one course of action over another. If I intended to do that, I would have said something like “the Chinese should have punished the US”. But I never said that because I didn’t intend to make a value judgment or suggest a course of action over another, as though I’m better positioned to understand what’s going on than the people intimately involved.

    • rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      But you did make a value judgement(arrogantly if I may add)… 🙄 Your intention was clear as purified water… As clear as the moonlight

      When you said “China capitulated”, you implicitly told all of us what your standard is which is “China should have continued with their pressure and they lost if they didn’t continue” and the rest of interpretations are not good enough. You implicitly told us your strong preference for your main interpretation rather than actually measuring the rest of the interpretations available. Also, you don’t need to write “should” to make a value judgement.

      If your true intention was to measure all of the interpretations available and examine if yours was the closest to the correct answer, then a better wording will have suffice and it will have help a lot if you didn’t double down on this:

      So you agree that China is more interested in maintaining business as usual than putting pressure on the US?

      • Max@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        My word choice betrayed what I intended to get at and I didn’t realize how significantly I misunderstood the connotation of capitulated until more folks started voicing the same perspective as XiBuck. That is why I initially balked at what I saw as a significant extension beyond what I intended to say in his response.