Richard claimed Kelsey was self-deceiving. We cannot prove this with certainty, but I read her changing the topic when pressed as evidence that it is. Despite this, they proceeded to talk about politics. You said if the accusation was right, this would likely make conversation feel impossible to her. People rarely initiate conversations they feel are impossible.
Your claim of “If [proposition we have evidence for] then conversation will likely feel impossible” did not strictly say that they would not have a continued exchange that I would characterize as “talking politics”, but it certainly implied it. I am confused as to how you think this was not implied, and request that you explain.
If I were to find myself believing Piper is too self deceiving to be worth talking politics with, I might declare her to be self deceiving. But I’d do it knowing that this will likely make conversation feel impossible to her, because if I’m right she won’t know how to side step the containment bucket I’ve dropped on her.
I’m confused what assumptions you’re making here. Are you taking “self deceiving” to be binary?
I didn’t say “if she’s self deceiving [at all]”. I put the bar at too self deceiving to be worth talking to. If she turned out to be able to hold a worthwhile conversation after I declared her to be self deceiving, it’d just mean that I was wrong that the level of self deception surpassed the “not worth talking to” bar. In other words, if I thought she was a little self deceiving but not to the point where it’s worth burning that bridge, I probably wouldn’t make such declarations. I might raise the possibility, but I probably wouldn’t declare it.
Ah, I was thrown because Richard asserted self-deception on a particular matter which ought to be somewhat binary. But your post wipes that away to talk about a general sense of being too self-deceiving at which point sure, she might be somewhat but not too self-deceiving.
Richard claimed Kelsey was self-deceiving. We cannot prove this with certainty, but I read her changing the topic when pressed as evidence that it is. Despite this, they proceeded to talk about politics. You said if the accusation was right, this would likely make conversation feel impossible to her. People rarely initiate conversations they feel are impossible.
Your claim of “If [proposition we have evidence for] then conversation will likely feel impossible” did not strictly say that they would not have a continued exchange that I would characterize as “talking politics”, but it certainly implied it. I am confused as to how you think this was not implied, and request that you explain.
I’m confused what assumptions you’re making here. Are you taking “self deceiving” to be binary?
I didn’t say “if she’s self deceiving [at all]”. I put the bar at too self deceiving to be worth talking to. If she turned out to be able to hold a worthwhile conversation after I declared her to be self deceiving, it’d just mean that I was wrong that the level of self deception surpassed the “not worth talking to” bar. In other words, if I thought she was a little self deceiving but not to the point where it’s worth burning that bridge, I probably wouldn’t make such declarations. I might raise the possibility, but I probably wouldn’t declare it.
Is that clearer?
Ah, I was thrown because Richard asserted self-deception on a particular matter which ought to be somewhat binary. But your post wipes that away to talk about a general sense of being too self-deceiving at which point sure, she might be somewhat but not too self-deceiving.