|
Post by Hordini on Oct 18, 2023 19:10:55 GMT -5
Similar to a large number of you interactions here, it's not what you did, it's how you did it. Someone asking for examples doesn't mean they want you to create a megathread to bully them. It's so much content, where are they even supposed to start? At the top. No, really! At the top, that's where I'd start. Or pick a random one. It doesn't matter really, because whembly simply handwaved away anyone bringing up smaller numbers of examples to them multiple times, and I really wasn't interested in trying to find the magic number that isn't too much or too few. Even when someone else presents a reasonable, respectful argument, there have been many times where I'd just rather not get into it because I know you are going to butt in with your toxic attitude and try to dominate the discussion. It's not "ignoring" and "dismissing" as much as it is "not willing to put up with your bullying." Well, here's your chance to engage with others. I promised to stay out of it, and so far I haven't responded to you or anyone else in that thread, like I said. And I plan to not respond to you in it, so you'll maybe actually address or engage with others' posts. I may post news of mass shootings or whatever, but I'm not going to reply to your posts unless you respond to one of my posts (and keep replys to others engaging with your posts to a minimum, such as if they're asking for evidence or a study or something I know of offhand, such as gun control/ownership views being pretty strictly divided between parties). Okay. If you don't want to respond to my posts that's fine, but to be clear, I don't have an issue with you responding to my posts. The issue is the rude manner in which you often do so. You can engage if you want to, and if you decide to, I'm not going to hold it over your head that you "promised to stay out of it" - even though I highly doubt you would do the same if our positions were reversed. But I'm not going to remain engaged for long if you start being disrespectful. I don't think that's too much to ask. It's almost literally the bare minimum. Is there a reason you can't do that (not a dig - I'm seriously asking because right now for some reason it seems like the only two options accessible to you are engage disrespectfully or not at all)?
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Oct 18, 2023 19:14:03 GMT -5
Respecting a position and respecting a person are two different things. You can demonstrate that something isn't socially acceptable without bullying someone. See, that's the issue. A tolerant society CANNOT tolerate some positions or ideas, or it stops being a tolerant society ironically. Bigotry and the people who spew it are some of those. They should not be respected or treated respectfully in most cases. Their worldview is based around treating others as lesser or inferior due to largely innate characteristics of others (The only characteristic I think some people might not consider innate would be religious beliefs, maybe a few others?), and I do not believe being mean to them is either bullying or wrong. When neo-nazis are marching and shouting "kill all [slurs]" should we just respectfully debate them about why they're wrong? Maybe when the KKK is talking about lynching some people, should we just write a strongly worded letter to them informing them it's wrong? When the Proud Boys show up carrying guns to threaten LGBT+ events and gatherings, should we just respectfully let them harass everyone for fear of being labeled "bullies"? No, absolutely not. That type of idealogy and those who champion it deserve no respect from anyone. Nah, easier to not give anyone a reason to stop responding. That way you can keep engaging with Herzlos and/or Skyth/etc and the points they bring up (which Herzlos has some good ones as always that you haven't engaged with yet).
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 18, 2023 19:22:16 GMT -5
Respecting a position and respecting a person are two different things. You can demonstrate that something isn't socially acceptable without bullying someone. See, that's the issue. A polite/tolerant society CANNOT tolerate some positions, or it stops being a polite society ironically. Bigotry and the people who spew it are some of those. They should not be respected or treated respectfully in most cases. Their worldview is based around treating others as lesser or inferior due to largely innate characteristics of others (The only characteristic I think some people might not consider innate would be religious beliefs, maybe a few others?), and I do not believe being mean to them is either bullying or wrong. When neo-nazis are marching and shouting "kill all [slurs]" should we just respectfully debate them about why they're wrong? Maybe when the KKK is talking about lynching some people, should we just write a strongly worded letter to them informing them it's wrong? When the Proud Boys show up carrying guns to threaten LGBT+ events and gatherings, should we just respectfully let them harass everyone in fear of being labelled "bullies" by people like you? No, absolutely not. That type of idealogy and those who champion it deserve no respect from anyone. Responding to Neo-Nazis marching and shouting slurs isn't bullying. Taking action in response to the KKK threatening to lynch people isn't bullying. Preventing the Proud Boys from threatening and harassing others isn't bullying. None of that has anything to do with what you're doing here though. Are there any Neo-Nazis, KKK members, or Proud Boys posting here?
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 18, 2023 19:25:53 GMT -5
Respecting a position and respecting a person are two different things. You can demonstrate that something isn't socially acceptable without bullying someone. See, that's the issue. A tolerant society CANNOT tolerate some positions or ideas, or it stops being a tolerant society ironically. Bigotry and the people who spew it are some of those. They should not be respected or treated respectfully in most cases. Their worldview is based around treating others as lesser or inferior due to largely innate characteristics of others (The only characteristic I think some people might not consider innate would be religious beliefs, maybe a few others?), and I do not believe being mean to them is either bullying or wrong. When neo-nazis are marching and shouting "kill all [slurs]" should we just respectfully debate them about why they're wrong? Maybe when the KKK is talking about lynching some people, should we just write a strongly worded letter to them informing them it's wrong? When the Proud Boys show up carrying guns to threaten LGBT+ events and gatherings, should we just respectfully let them harass everyone for fear of being labeled "bullies"? No, absolutely not. That type of idealogy and those who champion it deserve no respect from anyone. Nah, easier to not give anyone a reason to stop responding. That way you can keep engaging with Herzlos and/or Skyth/etc and the points they bring up (which Herzlos has some good ones as always that you haven't engaged with yet). Herzlos does have some good ones. But again, your toxicity often leads me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) to prefer avoiding this place for lengthy periods of time, regardless of how good the points some of the other members here bring up are. The quality of others' points has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Oct 18, 2023 19:26:12 GMT -5
See, that's the issue. A polite/tolerant society CANNOT tolerate some positions, or it stops being a polite society ironically. Bigotry and the people who spew it are some of those. They should not be respected or treated respectfully in most cases. Their worldview is based around treating others as lesser or inferior due to largely innate characteristics of others (The only characteristic I think some people might not consider innate would be religious beliefs, maybe a few others?), and I do not believe being mean to them is either bullying or wrong. When neo-nazis are marching and shouting "kill all [slurs]" should we just respectfully debate them about why they're wrong? Maybe when the KKK is talking about lynching some people, should we just write a strongly worded letter to them informing them it's wrong? When the Proud Boys show up carrying guns to threaten LGBT+ events and gatherings, should we just respectfully let them harass everyone in fear of being labelled "bullies" by people like you? No, absolutely not. That type of idealogy and those who champion it deserve no respect from anyone. Responding to Neo-Nazis marching and shouting slurs isn't bullying. Taking action in response to the KKK threatening to lynch people isn't bullying. Preventing the Proud Boys from threatening and harassing others isn't bullying. None of that has anything to do with what you're doing here though. Are there any Neo-Nazis, KKK members, or Proud Boys posting here? I think grog counts as at least a couple of those, as does QAR and a few others I'm forgetting I'm sure. Plus, you said to treat people with respect and attack the ideas (correct me if I'm wrong), to which my point is that's silly. Respectful debate does not defeat bigots (or neo nazis or proud boys or transphobes) because their ideas are not really based on logic (despite what they claim) but emotion. I'm not saying "people should respectfully deal with neo nazis et al, I'm saying they should be allowed to treat them like shit, and do what you'd call "bullying." Herzlos does have some good ones. But again, your toxicity often leads me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) to prefer avoiding this place for lengthy periods of time, regardless of how good the points some of the other members here bring up are. The quality of others' points has nothing to do with it. This is why I've stayed out of it so you have room to respond to their point about voluntary training being ineffective (or rather, mandatory training being important)
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 18, 2023 19:35:27 GMT -5
Responding to Neo-Nazis marching and shouting slurs isn't bullying. Taking action in response to the KKK threatening to lynch people isn't bullying. Preventing the Proud Boys from threatening and harassing others isn't bullying. None of that has anything to do with what you're doing here though. Are there any Neo-Nazis, KKK members, or Proud Boys posting here? I think grog counts as at least a couple of those, as does QAR and a few others I'm forgetting I'm sure. Plus, you said to treat people with respect and attack the ideas (correct me if I'm wrong), to which my point is that's silly. Respectful debate does not defeat bigots (or neo nazis or proud boys or transphobes) because their ideas are not really based on logic (despite what they claim) but emotion. As far as I can remember, none of them have given any indication that they are affiliated with those types of groups. And QAR didn't seem nearly as bad as grog. He seemed to at least occasionally make an effort. You seem to have some rather emotionally-based ideas yourself, based on your commonly inflammatory responses. Your suggestions seem no more likely to defeat bigots, just more likely to drive them away into their own echo chambers, which might be worse. That approach certainly hasn't done our society any good in the past few years. It's arguable if it's made it any worse, but it's certainly not helped anything. Most importantly, no one remaining here is a bigot, neo-Nazi, Proud Boy, or transphobe, so there's no reason for you not to treat those people who remain with respect and attack the ideas. It's all well and good if you think being rude to bigots, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, and transphobes is a more effective way of dealing with them, but that's not who you're having discussions with here, and that's the problem.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 324
|
Post by skyth on Oct 18, 2023 20:11:24 GMT -5
That approach certainly hasn't done our society any good in the past few years. It's arguable if it's made it any worse, but it's certainly not helped anything. What's made it worse is the 'leader' who made it acceptable to spout the bigoted BS which allows it to spread like the virus it is. When there was a strong negative reaction to that sort of BS from everyone is when it was driven down.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 18, 2023 20:13:14 GMT -5
What's made it worse is the 'leader' who made it acceptable to spout the bigoted BS which allows it to spread like the virus it is. When there was a strong negative reaction to that sort of BS from everyone is when it was driven down. That is one thing that definitely did make it worse, likely even the biggest or at least most drastic thing, but I don't think it's the only thing.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Oct 18, 2023 20:19:21 GMT -5
As far as I can remember, none of them have given any indication that they are affiliated with those types of groups. And QAR didn't seem nearly as bad as grog. He seemed to at least occasionally make an effort. I don't think you need to explicitly say you're affiliated with a group like those to be comparable to them. QAR was just as bad, they just hid it better. You seem to have some rather emotionally-based ideas yourself, based on your commonly inflammatory responses. Your suggestions seem no more likely to defeat bigots, just more likely to drive them away into their own echo chambers, which might be worse. That approach certainly hasn't done our society any good in the past few years. It's arguable if it's made it any worse, but it's certainly not helped anything. The reason bigots are becoming more common is because their ideas have infiltrated the republican party (and other right wing parties) and are viewed as acceptable within those parties. Notice how they don't show up outside of their safe places usually. You don't see many proud boys or three percenters on the west coast for example. The intolerance of them and their ideas is what keeps them gone. Meanwhile, your idea was what, politely ask grog to stop being racist? That obviously hasn't been working. Most importantly, no one remaining here is a bigot, neo-Nazi, Proud Boy, or transphobe, so there's no reason for you not to treat those people who remain with respect and attack the ideas. It's all well and good if you think being rude to bigots, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, and transphobes is a more effective way of dealing with them, but that's not who you're having discussions with here, and that's the problem. I didn't give a comprehensive list of ideas and positions. For example, in my opinion, your position on guns and gun violence isn't respectable. It's detrimental to society and actively harmful to pretend guns have no part in causing deaths, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that it absolutely does. Your unwillingness to consider any evidence that might paint gun ownership in a negative light is why I called it your sacred cow. Or pretending that defensive gun use is important or common when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. (I don't expect you to engage with this, but I do hope you'll read it and check out some of the reports and read how they lay out that there cannot be millions of defensive gun uses.) Those positions are not respectable. They should not be treated as if they're equal to positions based on reality. Those positions are based almost entirely on propaganda that the NRA and similar groups put out and should be ridiculed as such.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Oct 19, 2023 3:00:34 GMT -5
You are not the right person at the right time, and more importantly you are not actually showing him any kindness. You don't know that. I do.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Oct 19, 2023 3:08:02 GMT -5
As far as I can remember, none of them have given any indication that they are affiliated with those types of groups. Are you serious? It's all well and good if you think being rude to bigots, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, and transphobes is a more effective way of dealing with them, but that's not who you're having discussions with here, and that's the problem. There is nothing rude about silently banning someone and deleting all their tweets for breaking the forum rules, though.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 19, 2023 19:52:48 GMT -5
How do you know? As far as I can remember, none of them have given any indication that they are affiliated with those types of groups. Are you serious? It's all well and good if you think being rude to bigots, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, and transphobes is a more effective way of dealing with them, but that's not who you're having discussions with here, and that's the problem. There is nothing rude about silently banning someone and deleting all their tweets for breaking the forum rules, though. Affiliation with one of those groups is a major accusation that shouldn't be taken lightly. As to the second part, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 19, 2023 20:14:11 GMT -5
As far as I can remember, none of them have given any indication that they are affiliated with those types of groups. And QAR didn't seem nearly as bad as grog. He seemed to at least occasionally make an effort. I don't think you need to explicitly say you're affiliated with a group like those to be comparable to them. QAR was just as bad, they just hid it better. You seem to have some rather emotionally-based ideas yourself, based on your commonly inflammatory responses. Your suggestions seem no more likely to defeat bigots, just more likely to drive them away into their own echo chambers, which might be worse. That approach certainly hasn't done our society any good in the past few years. It's arguable if it's made it any worse, but it's certainly not helped anything. The reason bigots are becoming more common is because their ideas have infiltrated the republican party (and other right wing parties) and are viewed as acceptable within those parties. Notice how they don't show up outside of their safe places usually. You don't see many proud boys or three percenters on the west coast for example. The intolerance of them and their ideas is what keeps them gone. Meanwhile, your idea was what, politely ask grog to stop being racist? That obviously hasn't been working. Most importantly, no one remaining here is a bigot, neo-Nazi, Proud Boy, or transphobe, so there's no reason for you not to treat those people who remain with respect and attack the ideas. It's all well and good if you think being rude to bigots, neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, and transphobes is a more effective way of dealing with them, but that's not who you're having discussions with here, and that's the problem. I didn't give a comprehensive list of ideas and positions. For example, in my opinion, your position on guns and gun violence isn't respectable. It's detrimental to society and actively harmful to pretend guns have no part in causing deaths, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that it absolutely does. Your unwillingness to consider any evidence that might paint gun ownership in a negative light is why I called it your sacred cow. Or pretending that defensive gun use is important or common when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. (I don't expect you to engage with this, but I do hope you'll read it and check out some of the reports and read how they lay out that there cannot be millions of defensive gun uses.) Those positions are not respectable. They should not be treated as if they're equal to positions based on reality. Those positions are based almost entirely on propaganda that the NRA and similar groups put out and should be ridiculed as such. In regards to QAR, fair enough, it's possible he may have just been hiding it better. The only issue with saying someone is "hiding it" is that you could say that about literally anyone (I'm not saying you're wrong about QAR in this case, I just mean in general). The infiltration of the Republican party is certainly a major contributor to the issue, and certainly one of the most publicly visible ones, but it's not the only factor and it didn't happen in a vacuum. In regards to grog, no, my idea was not to politely ask him to stop being racist. Nothing I have said or done either here or on ETC has ever indicated or even implied that. If that's what you've taken away from this, that's not even close to being accurate. As for the last part, I am always willing to consider evidence and regularly do so. Just because I haven't completed that conversation with you, doesn't mean that I haven't considered a wide variety of evidence. My positions are not based on NRA propaganda. I actually have some issues with the way the NRA has handled some things and I think they need to work on their focus and messaging. I read the Harvard link and I'll consider engaging with it in the Gun Control thread eventually (I'm not going to address the points specifically here because I don't want to muddy the waters any further in this thread). The issue here is, why do you think anyone would ever want to respond to you and show you any respect or engage with any of your sources or evidence, when you start your contribution to the conversation by ridiculing them? Regardless of how good you think the point you're making is, or how virtuous or logical your stance is in comparison to theirs, delivering it by being rude to someone isn't likely to elicit a reasonable response (or even a response at all). It seems like a catch-22 to disrespect someone and then accuse them of bad faith or ignoring evidence if they don't want to engage with you after that.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Oct 19, 2023 21:01:14 GMT -5
In regards to QAR, fair enough, it's possible he may have just been hiding it better. The only issue with saying someone is "hiding it" is that you could say that about literally anyone (I'm not saying you're wrong about QAR in this case, I just mean in general). There was a time on ETC when QAR said the tories weren't far right enough. Just because they're not screaming it at the top of their lungs doesn't mean they don't believe it, especially with how they've referred to LGBT+ people in similar terms as grog has. Yes, technically you could say that about anyone... but I'm not talking about anyone. I'm talking about someone based on what they've said and done. The infiltration of the Republican party is certainly a major contributor to the issue, and certainly one of the most publicly visible ones, but it's not the only factor and it didn't happen in a vacuum. Sure, there were factors that led to the republican party becoming full-on out and out bigots, but most of it were large-scale dog whistles or quietly (and not so quietly) feeding into xenophobia (i.e. the wars in the middle east). The republican party mainstreaming bigotry emboldened bigoted groups which led to the republican party more openly displaying the bigotry which led to even bolder actions by the bigoted groups, and so on. There's economic woes making people feel lost, but the largest factor is definitely the republican party fully embracing bigotry, pushing for bigoted legislation, and spreading blatant and damaging lies like LGBT+ people all being demonic pedophiles or whatever. In regards to grog, no, my idea was not to politely ask him to stop being racist. Nothing I have said or done either here or on ETC has ever indicated or even implied that. If that's what you've taken away from this, that's not even close to being accurate. And yet, that's what you did, and that's how it comes off considering all you did for RP was wag a finger at them, especially given that they're still not banned after their latest statements! Just go read their post history here. All that I've seen you do in regards to RP is deleting maybe a post or two, editing a single post, and asking them to not be racist... which they immediately ignored and still haven't been banned once because it didn't meet your requirements (per your post), and the second set because... I don't know actually! I literally pinged you about a very racist post where RP talks about how everyone must have known the attack was coming, and that post is gone now. Either you or RP deleted it, but it's still in my quote reply (so that you could find it in case it got removed) and Malus's I believe. They've clearly crossed the line multiple times since the warning you gave failed to do jack shit. And frankly, some things don't need a warning. Somethings are worthy of just being banned immediately so they don't have a chance to fester. Bigotry is one of those. As for the last part, I am always willing to consider evidence and regularly do so. Just because I haven't completed that conversation with you, doesn't mean that I haven't considered a wide variety of evidence. My positions are not based on NRA propaganda. I actually have some issues with the way the NRA has handled some things and I think they need to work on their focus and messaging. I read the Harvard link and I'll consider engaging with it in the Gun Control thread eventually (I'm not going to address the points specifically here because I don't want to muddy the waters any further in this thread). You stated you don't believe an increased amount of guns leads to higher rates of violence or homicide in general. You're blatantly dismissing reality just so you don't have to admit that guns, just maybe, could be contributing to the problem. You've also stated the "millions of DGU" factoid which... just isn't realistic. If there were 2 million DGUs (to satisfy the millions requirement), and only 10% of those had shots fired (and hit), and only half of those resulted in non-lethal wounds, we'd be seeing hundreds of thousands of gun injuries being reported. Instead, the latest statistic I can find is roughly 75k non-fatal bullet wound-related ER visits. Not to mention the issues with people self-reporting DGUs (again, Zimmerman would self-report it was a DGU) which further compounds the unreliability of that statistic. Of course, the percentages I came up with are just examples, we don't have any solid statistics on how prevalent DGUs actually are, just what people self-report. (And the havard study goes into greater detail on why the millions number makes even less sense beyond that) This is an example of why I do not believe you seriously examine or consider evidence that contradicts your worldview, and why I called gun rights your sacred cow.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 19, 2023 21:53:57 GMT -5
In regards to QAR, fair enough, it's possible he may have just been hiding it better. The only issue with saying someone is "hiding it" is that you could say that about literally anyone (I'm not saying you're wrong about QAR in this case, I just mean in general). There was a time on ETC when QAR said the tories weren't far right enough. Just because they're not screaming it at the top of their lungs doesn't mean they don't believe it, especially with how they've referred to LGBT+ people in similar terms as grog has. Yes, technically you could say that about anyone... but I'm not talking about anyone. I'm talking about someone based on what they've said and done. The infiltration of the Republican party is certainly a major contributor to the issue, and certainly one of the most publicly visible ones, but it's not the only factor and it didn't happen in a vacuum. Sure, there were factors that led to the republican party becoming full-on out and out bigots, but most of it were large-scale dog whistles or quietly (and not so quietly) feeding into xenophobia (i.e. the wars in the middle east). The republican party mainstreaming bigotry emboldened bigoted groups which led to the republican party more openly displaying the bigotry which led to even bolder actions by the bigoted groups, and so on. There's economic woes making people feel lost, but the largest factor is definitely the republican party fully embracing bigotry, pushing for bigoted legislation, and spreading blatant and damaging lies like LGBT+ people all being demonic pedophiles or whatever. In regards to grog, no, my idea was not to politely ask him to stop being racist. Nothing I have said or done either here or on ETC has ever indicated or even implied that. If that's what you've taken away from this, that's not even close to being accurate. And yet, that's what you did, and that's how it comes off considering all you did for RP was wag a finger at them, especially given that they're still not banned after their latest statements! Just go read their post history here. All that I've seen you do in regards to RP is deleting maybe a post or two, editing a single post, and asking them to not be racist... which they immediately ignored and still haven't been banned once because it didn't meet your requirements (per your post), and the second set because... I don't know actually! I literally pinged you about a very racist post where RP talks about how everyone must have known the attack was coming, and that post is gone now. Either you or RP deleted it, but it's still in my quote reply (so that you could find it in case it got removed) and Malus's I believe. They've clearly crossed the line multiple times since the warning you gave failed to do jack shit. And frankly, some things don't need a warning. Somethings are worthy of just being banned immediately so they don't have a chance to fester. Bigotry is one of those. As for the last part, I am always willing to consider evidence and regularly do so. Just because I haven't completed that conversation with you, doesn't mean that I haven't considered a wide variety of evidence. My positions are not based on NRA propaganda. I actually have some issues with the way the NRA has handled some things and I think they need to work on their focus and messaging. I read the Harvard link and I'll consider engaging with it in the Gun Control thread eventually (I'm not going to address the points specifically here because I don't want to muddy the waters any further in this thread). You stated you don't believe an increased amount of guns leads to higher rates of violence or homicide in general. You're blatantly dismissing reality just so you don't have to admit that guns, just maybe, could be contributing to the problem. You've also stated the "millions of DGU" factoid which... just isn't realistic. If there were 2 million DGUs (to satisfy the millions requirement), and only 10% of those had shots fired (and hit), and only half of those resulted in non-lethal wounds, we'd be seeing hundreds of thousands of gun injuries being reported. Instead, the latest statistic I can find is roughly 75k non-fatal bullet wound-related ER visits. Not to mention the issues with people self-reporting DGUs (again, Zimmerman would self-report it was a DGU) which further compounds the unreliability of that statistic. Of course, the percentages I came up with are just examples, we don't have any solid statistics on how prevalent DGUs actually are, just what people self-report. (And the havard study goes into greater detail on why the millions number makes even less sense beyond that) This is an example of why I do not believe you seriously examine or consider evidence that contradicts your worldview, and why I called gun rights your sacred cow. To the first two parts, got it, and got it. To the third part, no. I gave him a warning, and then I banned him earlier this week (can't remember if it was yesterday or the day before, but his last post was on the 17th), but he's been banned. To the fourth part, I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of estimates vary but that 2 million DGUs were the high end of the estimate (I just checked and the high end is actually over 3 million, but for some reason I was thinking it was 2 million as well). They don't have to be that high to be worth considering and even on the low end it's still hundreds of thousands (from around 500k, to the lowest of the low estimates I've seen being 108k). But that's probably better served for discussion in the gun thread. I was editing my last post so in case you missed the last and most important part: The issue here is, why do you think anyone would ever want to respond to you and show you any respect or engage with any of your sources or evidence, when you start your contribution to the conversation by ridiculing them? Regardless of how good you think the point you're making is, or how virtuous or logical your stance is in comparison to theirs, delivering it by being rude to someone isn't likely to elicit a reasonable response (or even a response at all). It seems like a catch-22 to disrespect someone and then accuse them of bad faith or ignoring evidence if they don't want to engage with you after that.
|
|