undefined | Better HN

0 pointstomlockwood6y ago0 comments

Isn't it possible that by posing a question that supposes the post you're questioning redefines something, you've created a case of the negative type of redefinition you're implying is happening?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

randallsquared6y ago· 2 in thread

In case you didn't read the top comment, the redefining was in the text and quite literal, not something that had to be supposed or inferred:

> You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.

tomlockwoodOP6y ago

If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.

randallsquared6y ago

I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition.

I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity to decide what opinions it's possible for him to have, in the commenter's view, and then covering the message of the essay (whatever you think of it) with one of the commenter's pg-possible opinions.

Personally, I'd prefer that commenters of this view argue against the essay directly, since I think there are a lot of things to say in that regard.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse