4 ms·

I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't get it. How was I forcing an argument in any shape or form? I merely asked for clarification on a _very_ ext

by Tharre 10y ago

I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't get it. How was I forcing an argument in any shape or form? I merely asked for clarification on a _very_ extreme claim, which I got shortly afterwards, in the form that the claim was meant differently. That would have been the end of the matter for me. But apparently I'm obnoxious? Well, than so be it.

EekSnakePond 10y ago
If you don't submit and lay prostrate before the initial claim, you are guilty. Asking questions is forbidden. Clarification is forbidden. Always pretend to understand instead of engaging in analysis. Welcome to the mindset of the people who want to control the Internet.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Alternately, a lot of us are tired of having the same discussions over and over again, with people who don't seem to be discussing in good faith. I, for one, approach every discussion online with cautious open-mindedness. My time is limited. It doesn't take much for me to want to direct my energies elsewhere. You can call it virtue-signalling, you can say that asking questions is forbidden, I can say that I'm under no obligation to talk to you or anyone. And I've learned, through my own experience, that there's a familiar form of discussion that I am not interested in having; the person I responded to hit that form and showed me my energy is better spent elsewhere. You can talk to them all you want. It's a big internet. I don't have to, and I won't.
  - EekSnakePond 10y ago
    An almost acceptable pivot, if it wasn't for the sealioning accusation in the parent.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      I stand by the sealioning accusation. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I think the poster was sealioning, and I'm not going to engage with someone beyond that. You want to? Go for it. I am not, nor is anyone else, obligated to.
CocaKoala 10y ago
You started out by dramatically misrepresenting the other person's position, which is obnoxious at best and malicious at worst. Would you prefer that I not give you the benefit of the doubt and claim that you deliberately straw-manned the other person's argument for some nebulous, nefarious purpose?
sinxoveretothex 10y ago
For what it's worth, I think your position is fair and the whole 'sealioning' people are strawmanning your argument. I think your 'error' here was approaching a topic that is [post-facto] obviously sensitive in a normal (i.e.: less than sensitive) manner. People get very polarized about politics[1] and your comments signaled you as being in opposition in some form wrt the "women's rights" position but did NOT virtue signal against their outgroup. Consequently, your argument was interpreted as being pro-outgroup, hence the "you're a neckbeard"-style attacks. Be more careful about sensitive topics next time. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

by Tharre 10y ago

EekSnakePond 10y ago

If you don't submit and lay prostrate before the initial claim, you are guilty. Asking questions is forbidden. Clarification is forbidden. Always pretend to understand instead of engaging in analysis. Welcome to the mindset of the people who want to control the Internet.

Frondo 10y ago
Alternately, a lot of us are tired of having the same discussions over and over again, with people who don't seem to be discussing in good faith. I, for one, approach every discussion online with cautious open-mindedness. My time is limited. It doesn't take much for me to want to direct my energies elsewhere. You can call it virtue-signalling, you can say that asking questions is forbidden, I can say that I'm under no obligation to talk to you or anyone. And I've learned, through my own experience, that there's a familiar form of discussion that I am not interested in having; the person I responded to hit that form and showed me my energy is better spent elsewhere. You can talk to them all you want. It's a big internet. I don't have to, and I won't.
- EekSnakePond 10y ago
  An almost acceptable pivot, if it wasn't for the sealioning accusation in the parent.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I stand by the sealioning accusation. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I think the poster was sealioning, and I'm not going to engage with someone beyond that. You want to? Go for it. I am not, nor is anyone else, obligated to.

CocaKoala 10y ago

You started out by dramatically misrepresenting the other person's position, which is obnoxious at best and malicious at worst. Would you prefer that I not give you the benefit of the doubt and claim that you deliberately straw-manned the other person's argument for some nebulous, nefarious purpose?

sinxoveretothex 10y ago

For what it's worth, I think your position is fair and the whole 'sealioning' people are strawmanning your argument. I think your 'error' here was approaching a topic that is [post-facto] obviously sensitive in a normal (i.e.: less than sensitive) manner. People get very polarized about politics[1] and your comments signaled you as being in opposition in some form wrt the "women's rights" position but did NOT virtue signal against their outgroup. Consequently, your argument was interpreted as being pro-outgroup, hence the "you're a neckbeard"-style attacks. Be more careful about sensitive topics next time. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...