4 ms·

The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger. People tend to forget this one as well. Some of the most foul rap music out there is a

The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger. People tend to forget this one as well. Some of the most foul rap music out there is authored and sung by people who have been in prison and have a hard time putting two coherent sentences together. Yet, in some cases, the arguments they put forth are perfectly valid. People flag because they are offended. I find that interesting. I have never down-voted anyone for tone. I don't get offended (it's kind of a pointless state of mind). My approach is to either up-vote or do nothing. In other words, I am perfectly content with the idea that everyone needs to have the ability to say their piece without being stepped on, whether I like the tone or not. The other interesting thing is people also fail to read and comprehend before posting a comment. Case in point, your comment: > The part that comes off as hostile is equating everyone who would be fine with a 25% paycut to being a "single hippie who wants to smoke dope all day and have no responsibilities" If you read my post this is not what I said. I did not equate "everyone" to this caricature purely intended to drive a point rather than be factually accurate. In the context of a discussion where the proposal is to limit all workers to six hours a day it is far more likely true that people would be unhappy due to the massive hit in income. You can hate the messenger but the message holds.

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
> The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger. But one's interest in attempting to engage the messenger in debate, or otherwise give them one's time, attention, and audience is not. > The other interesting thing is people also fail to read and comprehend before posting a comment. Case in point, I read it fully a couple times. Comprehend? I admitted as much: "Perhaps that wasn't your intent, [...]". Glad you find it interesting...? My goal here in replying is pointing out what part of your post I thought it likely people were actually objecting to - misinterpretation or not - as I thought you were missing the mark. > I did not equate "everyone" to this caricature purely intended to drive a point rather than be factually accurate. And the point I'm trying to drive home here is that this use of caricatures and hyperbole is, perhaps, easier to misinterpret over the internet than you realize - and an ineffective debate technique. And polarizing. And what's getting you flagged - not the underlying message. Communication is a two way street - part of the onus for communicating clearly does fall on you. > In the context of a discussion where the proposal is to limit all workers to six hours a day it is far more likely true that people would be unhappy due to the massive hit in income. Some people will be unhappy. Some people will be happy. There might be an interesting discussion as to what that breakdown looks like, both in percentages and in professions. I think we may disagree on where the lines are - to what degree it may or may not be nonsense - but it seems rather pointless to debate without at least trying to be accurate about it, yeah?

MaulingMonkey 10y ago

> The validity of an argument is absolutely independent of the messenger. But one's interest in attempting to engage the messenger in debate, or otherwise give them one's time, attention, and audience is not. > The other interesting thing is people also fail to read and comprehend before posting a comment. Case in point, I read it fully a couple times. Comprehend? I admitted as much: "Perhaps that wasn't your intent, [...]". Glad you find it interesting...? My goal here in replying is pointing out what part of your post I thought it likely people were actually objecting to - misinterpretation or not - as I thought you were missing the mark. > I did not equate "everyone" to this caricature purely intended to drive a point rather than be factually accurate. And the point I'm trying to drive home here is that this use of caricatures and hyperbole is, perhaps, easier to misinterpret over the internet than you realize - and an ineffective debate technique. And polarizing. And what's getting you flagged - not the underlying message. Communication is a two way street - part of the onus for communicating clearly does fall on you. > In the context of a discussion where the proposal is to limit all workers to six hours a day it is far more likely true that people would be unhappy due to the massive hit in income. Some people will be unhappy. Some people will be happy. There might be an interesting discussion as to what that breakdown looks like, both in percentages and in professions. I think we may disagree on where the lines are - to what degree it may or may not be nonsense - but it seems rather pointless to debate without at least trying to be accurate about it, yeah?