But is that how you likely feel about what you’re saying? Probably not. Same goes for your lensed interpretation of Brett’s words. Part of what you see in his statement is merely a reflection of your own prior perceptions, yet you speak as if there’s only one interpretation.
No it's not. It's about the implications of his words, which are obvious. If his message is this unclear to you, then so should mine be, in which case you have no grounds to argue with me, because you can't be sure of my intent. (You see how idiotic this line of reasoning is?)
-
-
The fact that you’re arguing about said implications online with multiple people undermines your point rather severely. And calling people names doesn’t nullify said performative contradiction.
-
And you have your logic backwards. The entire evolutionary function of language is to allow for the coherence of agents that possess inherently differentiated perspectives. But saying an elephant is only its tail does not help things.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.