Saying they picked their parents wisely is a sarcastic way of saying they were lucky which family they were born into, in a way that pokes fun at our tendency to attribute their success to decisons rather than luck and circumstance. The reviewer does not honestly believe they consciously selected their own parents lmao
Yes, but making that point, sarcastically or otherwise, ratuer contradicts the main thesis of “billionares are a group that thinks alike and spends most of their time trying to grow their fortunes”. Sarcasm isn’t about stating a thesis and then contradicting it with your very first argument.
It’s astounding how badly apparently a lot of people are failing to read here.
To be very slightly fair I suppose the sentence fragmentation doesn’t help? It should read “a dishonest premise: that billionaires” but, like, the wording wouldn’t change. It’s very clear and not at all ambiguous that the reviewer considers the book’s premise dishonest.
It perfectly fits with the rest of their argument that billionaires owe their success to luck and circumstance more than whatever magical secrets the book author is claiming. Not sure what else to tell ya bud.
Sarcasm detector did not go Brrrr
I’m not sure sarcasm against your own argument helps said argument.
Not quite sure how sarcasm works, are you?
What, you’re saying the whole review is sarcasm? I am 99% certain it’s not: original
Saying they picked their parents wisely is a sarcastic way of saying they were lucky which family they were born into, in a way that pokes fun at our tendency to attribute their success to decisons rather than luck and circumstance. The reviewer does not honestly believe they consciously selected their own parents lmao
Yes, but making that point, sarcastically or otherwise, ratuer contradicts the main thesis of “billionares are a group that thinks alike and spends most of their time trying to grow their fortunes”. Sarcasm isn’t about stating a thesis and then contradicting it with your very first argument.
Go back and reread. The reviewer is restating the book’s premise, not their own.
Jesus, am I getting trolled here?
It’s astounding how badly apparently a lot of people are failing to read here.
To be very slightly fair I suppose the sentence fragmentation doesn’t help? It should read “a dishonest premise: that billionaires” but, like, the wording wouldn’t change. It’s very clear and not at all ambiguous that the reviewer considers the book’s premise dishonest.
Yes, I understand it’s funny, that is why I posted it. I don’t understand how it helps the reviewer’s argument.
It perfectly fits with the rest of their argument that billionaires owe their success to luck and circumstance more than whatever magical secrets the book author is claiming. Not sure what else to tell ya bud.
… what?
Whoosh