Do you understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of, or exclusive of the year?
To over explain:
I understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of the year, which would imply you’re saying they won 2016.
But the only way your statements make sense to me is if you understand them to exclude 2016.
Not attempting to argue. I literally can’t tell if I’m shifting off the linguistics baseline as I age/my neurodiversity seems to be getting worse, or if I’m just fucking losing it.
Edit: Another, more likely meaning occurred to me. You may be asserting they won the presidential election, which - they did not. They won the popular vote. They lost the election, however, because presidential elections are designed so that landowners have more say than raw numbers of voters.
It’s an unjust and inequitable electoral approach, but it is the way U.S. presidential elections are determined.
You can actually interpret it both ways but based on context and the fact that we all know Donald Trump won in 2016 I would hope people aren’t so difficult online as to default to the obviously wrong interpretation. It seems I’ve once again underestimated how stubborn people can be online in the service of correcting people. Truly that capacity is bottomless so long as there is even a the flimsiest handhold to cling to.
The implication is since Donald Trump won in 2016. Are you done deliberately misinterpreting me or do you want to swap over to playing dense or some other nonsense now since there’s no more room for ambiguity? Can we actually go back to the original point or are you going to keep playing this game?
I’m not sure how to respond, other than to note that you’re 1.) excessively hostile and attribute intent to an inquisitive, non-challenging comment that offered you an extreme amount of leeway in which you could respond in a not-dickish manner, and 2.) you implied something in a medium where you do not know your audience and cannot convey subtext, then got defensive when your failure to explicitly communicate resulted in others misunderstanding you.
My main comment was about linguistics, really. “Since 2016” is factually wrong with no hint you’re implying something else. I was willing to accept that perhaps I was not up with shifting language trends. What you believe you were saying - the implied ‘since Trump’s 2016 win’ makes perfect sense, but that is not what you wrote.
Considering that others actually challenged you on that point and you are generally underwater in your vote ratio, I think it’s fair to say that you are the outlier, and it is not others reaching to misunderstand you or attempt to correct you. It must be a very frustrating existence to poorly communicate and expect others to understand you.
And my edit was offering you an opportunity to sidestep the whole linguistics part of it (of which, I remind you - I was not telling you that you were wrong, but asking you if my interpretation was wrong.), and say you meant that the democrats won the popular vote, which is true. My other additions were my own lamentations of the bullshit electoral system, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.
Don’t high road me after that frustrating display of pretending you didn’t understand what I meant. This isn’t a linguistics class, this isn’t an academic paper. My point was clear and you did the annoying “internet correcting” thing. Now you’re falling back on technicalities that aren’t at all necessary to the discussion.
The point is democrats have been winning national elections basically nonstop since Trump won in 2016. That was clear. So talk about the subject at hand or don’t talk at all. Stop wasting our time with this crap.
I have explained it twice now so at this point you’re just in this argument for the fight. I’m done with this nonsense. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I’m blocking you and won’t be reading it either way.
Yes, we all remember President Hillary Clinton…
…”since 2016” is 2 of the 9 words I commented with. Surely that wasn’t too long of a sentence to read?
Do you understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of, or exclusive of the year?
To over explain:
I understand “since 2016” to be inclusive of the year, which would imply you’re saying they won 2016.
But the only way your statements make sense to me is if you understand them to exclude 2016.
Not attempting to argue. I literally can’t tell if I’m shifting off the linguistics baseline as I age/my neurodiversity seems to be getting worse, or if I’m just fucking losing it.
Edit: Another, more likely meaning occurred to me. You may be asserting they won the presidential election, which - they did not. They won the popular vote. They lost the election, however, because presidential elections are designed so that landowners have more say than raw numbers of voters.
It’s an unjust and inequitable electoral approach, but it is the way U.S. presidential elections are determined.
You can actually interpret it both ways but based on context and the fact that we all know Donald Trump won in 2016 I would hope people aren’t so difficult online as to default to the obviously wrong interpretation. It seems I’ve once again underestimated how stubborn people can be online in the service of correcting people. Truly that capacity is bottomless so long as there is even a the flimsiest handhold to cling to.
The implication is since Donald Trump won in 2016. Are you done deliberately misinterpreting me or do you want to swap over to playing dense or some other nonsense now since there’s no more room for ambiguity? Can we actually go back to the original point or are you going to keep playing this game?
I’m not sure how to respond, other than to note that you’re 1.) excessively hostile and attribute intent to an inquisitive, non-challenging comment that offered you an extreme amount of leeway in which you could respond in a not-dickish manner, and 2.) you implied something in a medium where you do not know your audience and cannot convey subtext, then got defensive when your failure to explicitly communicate resulted in others misunderstanding you.
My main comment was about linguistics, really. “Since 2016” is factually wrong with no hint you’re implying something else. I was willing to accept that perhaps I was not up with shifting language trends. What you believe you were saying - the implied ‘since Trump’s 2016 win’ makes perfect sense, but that is not what you wrote.
Considering that others actually challenged you on that point and you are generally underwater in your vote ratio, I think it’s fair to say that you are the outlier, and it is not others reaching to misunderstand you or attempt to correct you. It must be a very frustrating existence to poorly communicate and expect others to understand you.
And my edit was offering you an opportunity to sidestep the whole linguistics part of it (of which, I remind you - I was not telling you that you were wrong, but asking you if my interpretation was wrong.), and say you meant that the democrats won the popular vote, which is true. My other additions were my own lamentations of the bullshit electoral system, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.
I hope you have a day that is as lovely as you.
Don’t high road me after that frustrating display of pretending you didn’t understand what I meant. This isn’t a linguistics class, this isn’t an academic paper. My point was clear and you did the annoying “internet correcting” thing. Now you’re falling back on technicalities that aren’t at all necessary to the discussion.
The point is democrats have been winning national elections basically nonstop since Trump won in 2016. That was clear. So talk about the subject at hand or don’t talk at all. Stop wasting our time with this crap.
You could also choose not to waste people’s time by communicating effectively. We’re not in your head.
I have explained it twice now so at this point you’re just in this argument for the fight. I’m done with this nonsense. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I’m blocking you and won’t be reading it either way.