“I said on the campaign trail that I wouldn’t be attending, and I’ve made my views on the Israeli government clear,” Mamdani said at the same briefing.
It’s good faith to notice you chose the same country for example A and two neighboring countries for example B, unless you’re saying you chose the objectively two best possible examples or something.
Okay but a lot of people were confused meaning your comment was unclear, you can just admit that instead of doubling down because you feel you can’t be criticized. Yes, they were the first two fitting examples in YOUR mind, that doesn’t mean others can’t reasonably in good faith decide they were poor examples.
I engaged in good faith with people who engaged in good faith. And I kicked back the comments that weren’t in good faith.
You’re the one doubling down. I responded to a comment, and you took it out of context by cherry-picking the comment I responded to for the part that wasn’t relevant to my response. In academia, that’s called an uncharitable interpretation at best.
Simply telling you which part I responded to, and restating the part that makes it obvious from context (which you ignored) is not the same thing as “doubling down because you feel you can’t be criticized.”
Anyway, people were confused by your comment and it wasn’t in bad faith. You might think you pointed out the parts that made it obvious, but again obvious to you, not obvious to some other real human beings.
You must be deep into your phd program or something to actually use “in academia” as some kind of relevant analogy to whatever this is, so some good advice is to really accept your advisors critiques as valid, even if it doesn’t make sense to you. You can of course get a second opinion, but ultimately you want your work to be accessible to your intended audience, people like your advisor. Whether or not you think it’s clear enough already, what matters is if in fact it is clear enough to your audience.
It’s good faith to notice you chose the same country for example A and two neighboring countries for example B, unless you’re saying you chose the objectively two best possible examples or something.
I wouldn’t call it the objectively best, just the first two fitting examples that came to mind.
In fact, I’d phrase it more like this:
Okay but a lot of people were confused meaning your comment was unclear, you can just admit that instead of doubling down because you feel you can’t be criticized. Yes, they were the first two fitting examples in YOUR mind, that doesn’t mean others can’t reasonably in good faith decide they were poor examples.
I engaged in good faith with people who engaged in good faith. And I kicked back the comments that weren’t in good faith.
You’re the one doubling down. I responded to a comment, and you took it out of context by cherry-picking the comment I responded to for the part that wasn’t relevant to my response. In academia, that’s called an uncharitable interpretation at best.
Simply telling you which part I responded to, and restating the part that makes it obvious from context (which you ignored) is not the same thing as “doubling down because you feel you can’t be criticized.”
Lmao
Anyway, people were confused by your comment and it wasn’t in bad faith. You might think you pointed out the parts that made it obvious, but again obvious to you, not obvious to some other real human beings.
You must be deep into your phd program or something to actually use “in academia” as some kind of relevant analogy to whatever this is, so some good advice is to really accept your advisors critiques as valid, even if it doesn’t make sense to you. You can of course get a second opinion, but ultimately you want your work to be accessible to your intended audience, people like your advisor. Whether or not you think it’s clear enough already, what matters is if in fact it is clear enough to your audience.
Yeah, you don’t know what an uncharitable interpretation is? Whatever.
I haven’t been in college in years. That doesn’t make uncharitable interpretations any more worthwhile to engage with.