Hmm, there are a bunch of rhetorical components like “she told me not to talk to Ben about it” that I think almost any reader would interpret as disconfirmation of this being the case.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben, then I think that section would IMO be pretty misleading (and that is relevant and not just pre-empted by it trying to be a reductio-ad-absurdum, since the level of misleadingness is trying to be parallel to the original Nonlinear post).
“she told me not to talk to Ben about it” still can be true (but misleading) under this hypothesis.
In a section written as true but misleading, this does not seem to me like evidence against “she” referring to Kat in that sentence.
I don’t think the section is written to be misleading in a generic sense. The section is written to be misleading in a very specific way by drawing an analogy to how information in Ben’s post was presented. I don’t see any candidate analogy for this kind of misleadingness in Ben’s post.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben
Is it actually the case that Kat and Ben used to date? If so this seems like the sort of information that should have been disclosed, probably in both posts.
They definitely did not date. But also, where are you getting the implication of dating from? The relevant section doesn’t seem to make a reference to dating.
Hmm, there are a bunch of rhetorical components like “she told me not to talk to Ben about it” that I think almost any reader would interpret as disconfirmation of this being the case.
I think if this is a summary of Kat’s experiences with Ben, then I think that section would IMO be pretty misleading (and that is relevant and not just pre-empted by it trying to be a reductio-ad-absurdum, since the level of misleadingness is trying to be parallel to the original Nonlinear post).
“she told me not to talk to Ben about it” still can be true (but misleading) under this hypothesis. In a section written as true but misleading, this does not seem to me like evidence against “she” referring to Kat in that sentence.
I don’t think the section is written to be misleading in a generic sense. The section is written to be misleading in a very specific way by drawing an analogy to how information in Ben’s post was presented. I don’t see any candidate analogy for this kind of misleadingness in Ben’s post.
Is it actually the case that Kat and Ben used to date? If so this seems like the sort of information that should have been disclosed, probably in both posts.
We never dated. We only interacted briefly once before this whole thing happened
Thanks!
They definitely did not date. But also, where are you getting the implication of dating from? The relevant section doesn’t seem to make a reference to dating.
I think I got confused by the adjacent sections where the subsequent one is about bad breakups and disgruntled exes.