See my comment above. Your interpretation would make sense if "unfortunate skin" wasn't followed by "and caste divisions'.
Having some charge from other interactions may not help in an unbiased understanding of her sentence. We have to admit that we have some of the same human flaws as we so easily perceive in others. (Myself very much …
See my comment above. Your interpretation would make sense if "unfortunate skin" wasn't followed by "and caste divisions'.
Having some charge from other interactions may not help in an unbiased understanding of her sentence. We have to admit that we have some of the same human flaws as we so easily perceive in others. (Myself very much included).
One common flaw in those following neo-progressive ideology is the inability to take a peek at things through any lens but the first and most emotionally driven one that triggers them, and then seek to defend that first take. It's a human thing, but they generally don't care to try to compensate for that bias.
"Having some charge from other interactions may not help in an unbiased understanding of her sentence"
It's not charge, I've spoken to her. I know my interpretation of the sentence is correct not because I'm triggered, but because I've spoken to her about it in other conversations. That's why I said I have an advantage. With no other context, I can see how the sentence could be interpreted as you interpret it. I have that context.
You're totally right. A common flaw in all thinking is the inability to look at things through any lens but the first or the most emotionally driven. I'm fully aware that I'm susceptible to that flaw too. But isn't it also what you're doing here?
See my comment above. Your interpretation would make sense if "unfortunate skin" wasn't followed by "and caste divisions'.
Having some charge from other interactions may not help in an unbiased understanding of her sentence. We have to admit that we have some of the same human flaws as we so easily perceive in others. (Myself very much included).
One common flaw in those following neo-progressive ideology is the inability to take a peek at things through any lens but the first and most emotionally driven one that triggers them, and then seek to defend that first take. It's a human thing, but they generally don't care to try to compensate for that bias.
"Having some charge from other interactions may not help in an unbiased understanding of her sentence"
It's not charge, I've spoken to her. I know my interpretation of the sentence is correct not because I'm triggered, but because I've spoken to her about it in other conversations. That's why I said I have an advantage. With no other context, I can see how the sentence could be interpreted as you interpret it. I have that context.
You're totally right. A common flaw in all thinking is the inability to look at things through any lens but the first or the most emotionally driven. I'm fully aware that I'm susceptible to that flaw too. But isn't it also what you're doing here?