It’s a trap! :D Just because he can come up with a different way to make the same general statement does not mean the original in the post is not general. ;)
Imagine a world where there’s exactly one person who was born was purple hair and they happen to like cookies. You say “People with purple hair like cookies”. It narrows down the pool of existing people to exactly one, but you’re still making a general statement about all people with purple hair. You’re saying that anyone in the past who may have had purple hair also likes cookies. Anyone in the future born with purple hair also likes cookies.
That’s one feature, this is at the very least two features that describe one country at the moment and we all know which it is.
You could read it generally but that would be generally stupid.
And notably the statement is factual, the fact that some countries don’t have 4 year election cycle and 4 year campaign cycle proves both their point and mine not mr.always.
I could change the example to purple hair and big feet. How does that change the fact that other people with purple hair and big feet could exist in the past/future?
Reiterating on what I said in the other branch of this thread, language exists as a means to convey information. There has to be a way to distinguish between making a general statement and a specific one.
You are repeatedly bringing up context to justify ignoring basic sentence structure that clearly indicates it is general, yet ignore the other part of the context that is inconvenient to you.
Namely, that interpreting it your way means the user just decided to post “US system is fundamentally broken” without any elaboration or context. Why would anyone do that? What value would such post have, without pointing out what specifically is broken? People post such sentences in context to point out why they think it is broken. Because of this, most people interpret it as general statement that is, at the same time, implying US fits the generalization and is therefore broken. Combining the reasoning and conclusion into one short sentence.
Also, why would the user pick these very specific and topical traits to describe the US, instead of dozens more recognizable stereotypical ones, unless they wanted to use the generalization as reasoning?
And the generalization used as reasoning is what we disagree with, not the conclusion.
It’s written specifically in reference but with just enough obscurity to say it could be anyone, anyone with a brain knows it’s not. To answer your question I wouldn’t change it at all, it’s fine. The only one playing this dumb game is you and your alts.
How do you imagine language to work if you don’t have a way of communicating what you want to communicate? Both the general and specific statement are reasonable for someone to make in this context, so there should be a way to express both.
I agree that you can reasonably make this specific statement about the US. I don’t agree that this is what OP said, because the general statement is also valid, and they used the words to convey that it’s a general statement.
No one is talking about it generally regardless of how its phrased. No one.
How would you phrase it if you did want it to be a general statement?
It’s a trap! :D Just because he can come up with a different way to make the same general statement does not mean the original in the post is not general. ;)
It’s not general at all. If I say “someone like” and describe you head to toe? Is that general or is that specific and targeted?
Imagine a world where there’s exactly one person who was born was purple hair and they happen to like cookies. You say “People with purple hair like cookies”. It narrows down the pool of existing people to exactly one, but you’re still making a general statement about all people with purple hair. You’re saying that anyone in the past who may have had purple hair also likes cookies. Anyone in the future born with purple hair also likes cookies.
That’s one feature, this is at the very least two features that describe one country at the moment and we all know which it is.
You could read it generally but that would be generally stupid.
And notably the statement is factual, the fact that some countries don’t have 4 year election cycle and 4 year campaign cycle proves both their point and mine not mr.always.
I could change the example to purple hair and big feet. How does that change the fact that other people with purple hair and big feet could exist in the past/future?
Reiterating on what I said in the other branch of this thread, language exists as a means to convey information. There has to be a way to distinguish between making a general statement and a specific one.
The thing that would change it is context, I’m looking at you and describing you but only with generalities.
Yes it is, and you’ve missed the point entirely but trying to swim through tedium.
You are repeatedly bringing up context to justify ignoring basic sentence structure that clearly indicates it is general, yet ignore the other part of the context that is inconvenient to you.
Namely, that interpreting it your way means the user just decided to post “US system is fundamentally broken” without any elaboration or context. Why would anyone do that? What value would such post have, without pointing out what specifically is broken? People post such sentences in context to point out why they think it is broken. Because of this, most people interpret it as general statement that is, at the same time, implying US fits the generalization and is therefore broken. Combining the reasoning and conclusion into one short sentence.
Also, why would the user pick these very specific and topical traits to describe the US, instead of dozens more recognizable stereotypical ones, unless they wanted to use the generalization as reasoning?
And the generalization used as reasoning is what we disagree with, not the conclusion.
It’s written specifically in reference but with just enough obscurity to say it could be anyone, anyone with a brain knows it’s not. To answer your question I wouldn’t change it at all, it’s fine. The only one playing this dumb game is you and your alts.
How do you imagine language to work if you don’t have a way of communicating what you want to communicate? Both the general and specific statement are reasonable for someone to make in this context, so there should be a way to express both.
Then you agree with me and you’ve been arguing for no goddamn reason dipshit.
I agree that you can reasonably make this specific statement about the US. I don’t agree that this is what OP said, because the general statement is also valid, and they used the words to convey that it’s a general statement.
They did that so x wouldn’t block it not because it’s easier or more factual.
This was posted to Bluesky. Bluesky is not the same platform as X.
It could be Facebook for all it matter. The reason is the same regardless of media platform but keep on with the weird attempts at gotcha tedium.