3 ms·
> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking ... Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude tho
by gutnor 9y ago
> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking ...
Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude though. You start in a defensive position in a debate you didn't call. You are stuck in the specific frame the author has decided to limit his own argument. He also restrict the time you have to prepare such a refutal piece as every minute he spend with his argument unchallenged, the weaker the counterarguments look.
Sure the average Google employee is more fact minded than emotionally driven, but it is a loaded subject in general but even more in IT.
What's the best possible outcome of crafting such a reply anyway ? Shutting down one single guy because nobody will engage in a friendly debate after live shots have been fired.
- occultist_throw 9y agowell, the easiest way to refute is to call him racist, sexist, and ageist, all the while beating the "FIRE HIM NOW" drum. it works rather effectively. (seriously, the dh0 "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a terrifying force, when seen and used as in a group or mob.)
- taneq 9y agoYou're under no compulsion to refute the author or to engage them in a debate, except that you've taken issue with their statement of their position and you've chosen to attack it. Do you feel that viewpoints that you disagree with should not be allowed to be stated publicly and remain unopposed?