Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man
That one group represents a massive chunk of America, that's an important point to make. Yep, normal to me would be a huge portion of the American population that cities do not have in any meaningful portions.
I don't know what the percentages are. I do know cities like Chicago(soley based on looking at income maps from like the 1970s-2010s) used to have massives sections of their cities where middle-class families thrived. Today Chicago, along with most large sought after cities, are comprised the wealthy, the poor, and young people who are either in college or just got their first job etc.. So basically you have the extremes of those who are "haves" and those that are "havenots." I don't like that. I want families who make 50-70k a year to not only be able to afford a house in a good city neighborhood, but also feel comfortable sending their kids to local schools.
Our cities would change radically if just 10% of families who end up in the burbs go or stay in the city.
|
Thanks, that's definitely clearer and I would probably have to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
"Slower on the uptake" or deliberately obtuse and aggressive?
It was plainly obvious he or she was referring to social conventions, and his use of quotation marks made it clear it wasn't necessarily his view of "normal", but rather what society often deems to be "normal".
Intelligent people should not need an ''interpreter" to figure that out.
|
The only thing that's aggressive is making unwarranted accusations about people's intent.
The purpose of quotation marks is to quote someone else's statement (hence the same). But they're often also used by people to avoid ownership/responsibility for statements that they're making without actually attributing the statement to anyone else (similar to weasel words like
some say). I don't have a huge issue with that but if they're not quoting someone else I simply attribute the statement to the person saying it and ask them to clarify if there's anything unclear to me.
Much like his original statement, my question was also no big deal. I agree that he was probably using the term based on common language (or social conventions as you put it) but there's no reason the meaning of such language should simply be assumed or accepted without question if one doubts its accuracy or clarity. Common usages and conventions sometimes have issues with accuracy, and
common doesn't mean universal. Someone may be reading it the same as you but want to take due diligence to ensure their reading is correct before challenging or criticizing it, and other times something that's obvious to you might not be obvious to others - whether because of differences in intelligence, culture, communication styles, or vernacular.
I recommend that if you encounter someone asking a question that you feel should be obvious, either give the benefit of the doubt and provide a helpful answer, or simply ignore it. Accusing them of malice isn't a useful response.
ps. I am definitely obtuse, but it isn't deliberate. It's just my personality.
