Upon reading the Time article, I immediately assumed that whoever the article was talking about did other creepy things. Assuming the Time article did not misrepresent things hugely, the idea that the person (who we now know is Owen) has not done any other creepy things did not even cross my mind. I feel like this is an extremely normal, even boring, within-context reading.
On the other hand, when you said that “Context that makes Owen look worse” includes “Owen self-admittedly went on to make other inappropriate comments to people on 4 other occasions” this implies to me that your prior belief before reading Owen’s statement was that whoever the Time article was referring to did not do other bad things, or at least did less bad things than say 4 other inappropriate comments of similar magnitude.
Because your reading appears to have differed so much from my own, I’m remarking on how this seems like a pretty odd prior to have, from my perspective.
We don’t actually know that there were only 4 other incidents. The only evidence we have for that is that Owen said so, and that other incidents have not currently come to light. We only know that there were at least 4 other incidents. So they’ve confessed to 5 more incidences than I expected them to.
I definitely agree that there might be other incidents that come to light. I still disagree that the presence of at least 5 incidents is much of an update that Time is underselling things.
You said it was a “one-off” incident, and that he “never otherwise does creepy things”. The fact that he confessed to four extra counts of innapropriate behavior proves that it was not a one-off incident, and that he did “otherwise do creepy things”. Both parts of the sentence are factually untrue.
Is English your native language? If not, I sometimes have trouble reading Mandarin texts and I found Google Translate to be okay. There might be better AI translation in the coming years as well.
I don’t know if you meant it like that, but this comment reads to me as very sarcastic towards someone who obviously just misunderstood you :/
Edit: especially as your original comment was clear and I don’t think anyone would read this thread and come out with the implied false beliefs about you.
Thanks, appreciate the feedback. I didn’t mean my comment as sarcastic and have retracted the comment. I had an even less charitable comment prepared but realized that “non-native speaker misunderstood what I said” is also a pretty plausible explanation given the international nature of this forum.
I might’ve been overly sensitive here, because the degree of misunderstanding and the sensitive nature of the topic feels reminiscent of patterns I’ve observed before on other platforms. This is one of the reasons why I no longer have a public Twitter.
I was also surprised by your somewhat strong reaction. To me it seems reasonable to assume that the other reader just missed the “not” in your comment, or accidentally misread it, whether they are a native speaker or not
???? I don’t understand what your comment is trying to imply.
Let me be more explicit:
Upon reading the Time article, I immediately assumed that whoever the article was talking about did other creepy things. Assuming the Time article did not misrepresent things hugely, the idea that the person (who we now know is Owen) has not done any other creepy things did not even cross my mind. I feel like this is an extremely normal, even boring, within-context reading.
On the other hand, when you said that “Context that makes Owen look worse” includes “Owen self-admittedly went on to make other inappropriate comments to people on 4 other occasions” this implies to me that your prior belief before reading Owen’s statement was that whoever the Time article was referring to did not do other bad things, or at least did less bad things than say 4 other inappropriate comments of similar magnitude.
Because your reading appears to have differed so much from my own, I’m remarking on how this seems like a pretty odd prior to have, from my perspective.
We don’t actually know that there were only 4 other incidents. The only evidence we have for that is that Owen said so, and that other incidents have not currently come to light. We only know that there were at least 4 other incidents. So they’ve confessed to 5 more incidences than I expected them to.
I definitely agree that there might be other incidents that come to light. I still disagree that the presence of at least 5 incidents is much of an update that Time is underselling things.
You said it was a “one-off” incident, and that he “never otherwise does creepy things”. The fact that he confessed to four extra counts of innapropriate behavior proves that it was not a one-off incident, and that he did “otherwise do creepy things”. Both parts of the sentence are factually untrue.
Sorry, I’m on your side here, but read Linch’s comment again. He wrote the opposite of what you’re saying he did.
Thank you. I acknowledge I misinterpreted the comment, and have retracted my previous comments on it.
Thanks, appreciate the update! <3
Is English your native language? If not, I sometimes have trouble reading Mandarin texts and I found Google Translate to be okay. There might be better AI translation in the coming years as well.
I don’t know if you meant it like that, but this comment reads to me as very sarcastic towards someone who obviously just misunderstood you :/
Edit: especially as your original comment was clear and I don’t think anyone would read this thread and come out with the implied false beliefs about you.
Thanks, appreciate the feedback. I didn’t mean my comment as sarcastic and have retracted the comment. I had an even less charitable comment prepared but realized that “non-native speaker misunderstood what I said” is also a pretty plausible explanation given the international nature of this forum.
I might’ve been overly sensitive here, because the degree of misunderstanding and the sensitive nature of the topic feels reminiscent of patterns I’ve observed before on other platforms. This is one of the reasons why I no longer have a public Twitter.
I was also surprised by your somewhat strong reaction. To me it seems reasonable to assume that the other reader just missed the “not” in your comment, or accidentally misread it, whether they are a native speaker or not