It is fully accepted to use quotation marks for non-verbatim purposes, i.e., to encapsulate, paraphrase, or coin a phrase; but they are also used for verbatim quotation and it's up to context to disambiguate between these uses. The most unambiguous contextual device would be a formal page citation, or if you use square brackets within the quotation that makes it clear that it's meant to be verbatim (with modifications in brackets). Perhaps you could have been clearer in context that it wasn't intended as a verbatim quotation, but I also think Rob is being unnecessarily and counterproductively uncharitable. Persnickety, even.
And this of course is the kind of logic Rob dislikes in other contexts - the idea that individuals should be treated according to average group data. You either agree with, or disagree with, disparitarianism. You can’t pick and choose. Either people are to be treated as individuals and not as though they embody group data or they aren’t.
I think using quotes is a bad idea. You could still synthesize and use italics. On the merits of the argument, Henderson strikes me as a young Jordan Peterson.
Can confirm. I posted a single comment in response to the one shown at the beginning of this article asking him if there is any difference between his view and what DLA quoted him as saying, and he instantly blocked me.
> I put quotation marks around the words “sufficiently harsh moral outrage.” In my mind, it is acceptable to use quotation marks when you are paraphrasing someone.
Maybe you could note they're not his actual words. What I sometimes do is quote someone, and then underneath give my take on what they're saying. That way, readers get the actual words and my commentary and it's obvious which is which.
You were wrong to use quote marks around something he didn't literally say without making it 100% clear that was your interpretation of what he was saying.
It's a mistake. Not a huge one, but a mistake. Apologize, don't do it again, and then ask him to respond to the substance.
Can you be more specific? Do you not like my tone of voice? This is the shortest emailed article I have published in months. If you think it's filled with too much fluff, well, I'm surprised you can get through my 9,000 word essays.
Sometimes I can't. I skim. The point is when you're wrong (you made a mistake, he was uncharitable in response) justifying yourself - esp. at length - makes your apology appear insincere.
Sure, you had reasons to make the mistake. You didn't intentionally misquote him or put words in his mouth. But you did end up doing that and he took offense, or pretended to in order to avoid responding to the substance.
Just say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that - yes you didn't actually say that". And be done with it.
I was rereading your text on the end of the NERDS. You explain that soldiers, blue collar and grey collar work will be alive for a while. What should you think a young lad like me should focus on in my 20s?
I don't have any practical advice on this, but I've been thinking for a while that AI will be really helpful in the trades. For example, we're already at the point where you can take a picture of a broken air conditioner and ask Chat GPT how to fix it. So maybe combination of learning hard skills and owning a good set of tools, but also getting proficient at AI tools to become a practical generalist.
Also, people skills will always be useful, particularly sales.
It is fully accepted to use quotation marks for non-verbatim purposes, i.e., to encapsulate, paraphrase, or coin a phrase; but they are also used for verbatim quotation and it's up to context to disambiguate between these uses. The most unambiguous contextual device would be a formal page citation, or if you use square brackets within the quotation that makes it clear that it's meant to be verbatim (with modifications in brackets). Perhaps you could have been clearer in context that it wasn't intended as a verbatim quotation, but I also think Rob is being unnecessarily and counterproductively uncharitable. Persnickety, even.
I invite Rob to defend the charge that he is persnickety, and I also regret using quotation marks.
You know someone's a serious thinker when their footnotes are longer than the work itself.
or is in deep trouble
And this of course is the kind of logic Rob dislikes in other contexts - the idea that individuals should be treated according to average group data. You either agree with, or disagree with, disparitarianism. You can’t pick and choose. Either people are to be treated as individuals and not as though they embody group data or they aren’t.
Ageism is the exception!
I think using quotes is a bad idea. You could still synthesize and use italics. On the merits of the argument, Henderson strikes me as a young Jordan Peterson.
It was a bad idea
I am surprised he hasn't blocked you yet. He's very trigger-happy with the block button, often for the mildest of criticisms.
Either that, or he just ignores his critics. He's been pretty disappointing as a public intellectual, frankly. Too cowardly to engage.
Can confirm. I posted a single comment in response to the one shown at the beginning of this article asking him if there is any difference between his view and what DLA quoted him as saying, and he instantly blocked me.
> I put quotation marks around the words “sufficiently harsh moral outrage.” In my mind, it is acceptable to use quotation marks when you are paraphrasing someone.
Maybe you could note they're not his actual words. What I sometimes do is quote someone, and then underneath give my take on what they're saying. That way, readers get the actual words and my commentary and it's obvious which is which.
This case should go before Judge Hanania. If he is a truth teller, let’s see if he can be unbiased between the great DLA and his friend Rob.
I would not make Hanania choose me over his friends -- he can sit this one out. I demand a truly unbiased judge: Bari Weiss herself.
The correct form is for quotation marks to be literal, but to do that is sloppy, not dishonest.
I'd recommend ignoring Rob Henderson.
You were wrong to use quote marks around something he didn't literally say without making it 100% clear that was your interpretation of what he was saying.
It's a mistake. Not a huge one, but a mistake. Apologize, don't do it again, and then ask him to respond to the substance.
did I not apologize in this article? Did I not ask him to respond to the substance in this article?
You did. You did. Just with a whole lot of pointless self-justification.
Can you be more specific? Do you not like my tone of voice? This is the shortest emailed article I have published in months. If you think it's filled with too much fluff, well, I'm surprised you can get through my 9,000 word essays.
Sometimes I can't. I skim. The point is when you're wrong (you made a mistake, he was uncharitable in response) justifying yourself - esp. at length - makes your apology appear insincere.
Sure, you had reasons to make the mistake. You didn't intentionally misquote him or put words in his mouth. But you did end up doing that and he took offense, or pretended to in order to avoid responding to the substance.
Just say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that - yes you didn't actually say that". And be done with it.
I havent heard of this guy but if he likes boomers so much he can volunteer in a nursing home changing their fucking diapers
I don't think he needs too -- many of them buy his book and fund his operation
Get his ass
I was rereading your text on the end of the NERDS. You explain that soldiers, blue collar and grey collar work will be alive for a while. What should you think a young lad like me should focus on in my 20s?
I would suggest you become a paid subscriber to unlock article requests
I don't have any practical advice on this, but I've been thinking for a while that AI will be really helpful in the trades. For example, we're already at the point where you can take a picture of a broken air conditioner and ask Chat GPT how to fix it. So maybe combination of learning hard skills and owning a good set of tools, but also getting proficient at AI tools to become a practical generalist.
Also, people skills will always be useful, particularly sales.
Couldn’t you just simply have used the proper formatting? It’s basic fo someone who writes and as long as you have it’s not a wild charge.
I made a mistake -- it was not my intention to misrepresent Rob, and I don't believe I misrepresented the substance of his views. Do you?