To be clear, that wasnt me you just responded to, but I was the one who asked you the questions. You seem to be making a lot of bad faith assumptions about my intent with those questions.
You’re asking a rhetorical question in the hopes of getting a gotcha.
Well, it is rhetorically framed, but I was trying to see if you and I are both working with frameworks built on reality.
Your primary goal here is not to deepen any kind of understanding.
Again, ouch. The tone of the questions may have come across that way, but my intent is never to “gotcha”… You’ll just have to take my word for it obviously.
If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You’d open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.
This is a forum on internet, not debate club. Like I said above, I’m sorry if my questions came across as being bad faith, but I’m not obligated to serve you a rhetorically perfect and fallacy-free set of questions, just as you are not obligated to engage with my questions if you feel they’re trying to uh… “Gotcha”
If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You’d open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.
I’m not totally sure how I’m responding with catch phrases. Honestly, if nothing else I’d love for you to clarify this
You want a nuanced discussion that delves into the specifics of the geopolitics of the region? Start a thread that’s not just diluted meaningless sentences, such as this nugget:
Why should the US president be in regular contact with the perpetrator of an ongoing genocide?
I’m sorry, I’m not being intentionally obtuse, but I can’t tell if you’re using the above as an example of a “diluted meaningless sentence” or whether it’s meant to be a good question.
Ultimately, I don’t feel I was acting in bad faith considering I was trying to evaluate your framework. If you feel it was done poorly, that’s okay, you dont need to respond.
I only responded to you in this manner because your comment is downstream from OPs catchphrase comment (90% of Lemmy and socia media these days). Soundbytes that sound good, but ultimately mean nothing.
It’s likely you were asking in good faith. I could have spent a lot of time typing up a thoughtful and comprehensive response only to find out later you really are here only for more memes. Then I would have lost a lot of time and it would have limited productivity.
It’s not personal, but after dozens of typed out discussions that end in “lmao. Genocide Joe tho America Imperialism bad” I’ve learned that unless someone starts the thread or convo with specifics it will only linger in the realm of memes.
Again, sorry if you feel singled out. I’m just building a stronger filter. And I urge others to do the same. We should all be pushing harder for specifics. I urge you to do the same when arguing with people online. Have the conversation grounded in specifics and not memes.
To summarize: If someone starts with claims that are essentially memes, they should not get detailed responses. Once people start talking specifics we can match the energy.
If you personally want to have a convo with me my dms are open.
To be clear, that wasnt me you just responded to, but I was the one who asked you the questions. You seem to be making a lot of bad faith assumptions about my intent with those questions.
Well, it is rhetorically framed, but I was trying to see if you and I are both working with frameworks built on reality.
Again, ouch. The tone of the questions may have come across that way, but my intent is never to “gotcha”… You’ll just have to take my word for it obviously.
This is a forum on internet, not debate club. Like I said above, I’m sorry if my questions came across as being bad faith, but I’m not obligated to serve you a rhetorically perfect and fallacy-free set of questions, just as you are not obligated to engage with my questions if you feel they’re trying to uh… “Gotcha”
I’m not totally sure how I’m responding with catch phrases. Honestly, if nothing else I’d love for you to clarify this
I’m sorry, I’m not being intentionally obtuse, but I can’t tell if you’re using the above as an example of a “diluted meaningless sentence” or whether it’s meant to be a good question.
Ultimately, I don’t feel I was acting in bad faith considering I was trying to evaluate your framework. If you feel it was done poorly, that’s okay, you dont need to respond.
Also:
Who are “you guys”?
I only responded to you in this manner because your comment is downstream from OPs catchphrase comment (90% of Lemmy and socia media these days). Soundbytes that sound good, but ultimately mean nothing.
It’s likely you were asking in good faith. I could have spent a lot of time typing up a thoughtful and comprehensive response only to find out later you really are here only for more memes. Then I would have lost a lot of time and it would have limited productivity.
It’s not personal, but after dozens of typed out discussions that end in “lmao. Genocide Joe tho America Imperialism bad” I’ve learned that unless someone starts the thread or convo with specifics it will only linger in the realm of memes.
Again, sorry if you feel singled out. I’m just building a stronger filter. And I urge others to do the same. We should all be pushing harder for specifics. I urge you to do the same when arguing with people online. Have the conversation grounded in specifics and not memes.
To summarize: If someone starts with claims that are essentially memes, they should not get detailed responses. Once people start talking specifics we can match the energy.
If you personally want to have a convo with me my dms are open.