4 ms·

The real evil is people willing to pivot any discussion to whatever topic they think is more important, destroying a platform for open discourse.

by kobeya 9y ago

root_axis 9y ago
Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony.
- rhizome 9y ago
  It's condescending to plainly try to change the topic to what the poster thinks the issue "really is." As a bald assertion, it's threadshitting.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    Whether or not it's condescending, it's not "destroying open discourse", that's absurd hyperbole.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      I agree, but that's in a bad-faith reply to guelo, who was the one trying to tell us "how it really is." Presumably because we're all dumb or watching the wrong news sources or something.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        > a bad-faith reply to guelo, who was the one trying to tell us "how it really is." Please explain to me how the argument is made in bad faith. You're characterizing their comment in this way because you disagree with their statement, you even go so far as to speculate on a cynical internal thought stream regarding their motivations for posting. To me, it reads like they are making an earnest argument, even if the rhetoric is dismissive.
        rhizome 9y ago
        root_axis' reply is what I was calling bad faith: "Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony." This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion.
        root_axis 9y ago
        You wrote: "I agree, but that's in a bad-faith reply to guelo,". I'm confused as to how that's meant to refer to my comment when I never replied to guelo. > This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion I will admit I misquoted, but the words "discourse" and "discussion" have a nearly identical meaning in this context unless there is a definition of discourse I am not aware of. Can you explain what you mean?
        rhizome 9y ago
        "platform for open discourse" would seem to support that, but this is all so far afield now that I can't muster much energy to continue the thread. I just hate it when people reply like they have the only window into reality. "let me correct you on how things really are."
    - kobeya 9y ago
      I said destroying a platform for open discourse, not what you quoted, and I'll stand by what I said. After a certain noise threshold is reached the platform becomes unusable. I've seen this happen on other sites, sometimes purposefully as a way to influence public opinion but shutting down certain topics.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        "The comments I don't like are noise". Sorry, but I think that sentiment sounds more hostile to the platform than the assertion that one should consider a different point of view on a subject. ballenf's comment was made succinctly and without any personal attacks; just because you disagree with it doesn't mean its noise. I think it's fair to criticize the comment as striking a dismissive tone, but at least it's addressing the substance of the OP's comment, you, on the other hand, categorically dismiss ballenf's comment as noise without taking the intellectual effort to address its substance. That seems a lot closer to noise than anything else up to that point.
        kobeya 9y ago
        Wow that's disingenuous. No, comments that are off-topic are noise. You want to debate something else (like you're doing now!), go do it in a different thread.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > No, comments that are off-topic are noise. All you're doing here is begging the question. What i'm telling you is that the comment does not meet the definition of "off-topic" and I've explained my reasoning for that, all you've done is repeat the same sentiment that "off-topic comments are noise" which is a completely non-controversial statement that nobody is arguing against. Absent of any further reasoning I am left to assume that you simply do not like the comment. For someone with such a self-righteous attitude regarding the tenants of appropriate discourse, you're sure lacking in respect for fellow commenters by your refusal to provide any justification for flippantly dismissing others comments as "off-topic noise". Normally I expect others to provide reasoning for blanket dismissals, but I suppose you must be the definitive authority on what is and isn't off topic, so everyone who disagrees will just take your word for it and move on. > You want to debate something else (like you're doing now!), go do it in a different thread. Haha, this entire subthread is a direct branch off of your explicitly off-topic comment, yet you're suggesting that I go away because I had the audacity to push back on your blanket dismissal... yet somehow I suspect you don't consider your own replies in this thread to be off-topic noise. I have to respectfully conclude that you're at least twice as disingenuous as a person who will gladly expound on the reasoning behind their arguments.
- abiox 9y ago
  Well... they were speaking to a behavior. It's a bit murky whether `dislike for changing the subject` is accurately or usefully reduced to `castigating someone else's opinion`.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    It is their opinion that the OP's concerns are overshadowed by larger concerns, that's not "changing the subject", it's a disagreement about where priorities should be directed with respect to the events discussed in the article, the subject remains unchanged. It's like someone saying "the senate always votes to raise its own pay whenever republicans are in power!" and someone else replying "they only raised it to match inflation, the real problem is that senators are charged with determining their own salary", then, someone responds with "stop changing the subject". If anyone is "changing the subject" it's the person that instigated a contentious meta-discussion about what is and what's not on topic.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      It is literally changing the subject. Even supposing the new topic is more important, and priorities were misallocated, the topic is still being changed.
BalanceMarx 9y ago
Do you mean that analogies are evil?

The real evil is people willing to pivot any discussion to whatever topic they think is more important, destroying a platform for open discourse.

by kobeya 9y ago

The real evil is people willing to pivot any discussion to whatever topic they think is more important, destroying a platform for open discourse.

root_axis 9y ago

Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony.

rhizome 9y ago
It's condescending to plainly try to change the topic to what the poster thinks the issue "really is." As a bald assertion, it's threadshitting.
- root_axis 9y ago
  Whether or not it's condescending, it's not "destroying open discourse", that's absurd hyperbole.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    I agree, but that's in a bad-faith reply to guelo, who was the one trying to tell us "how it really is." Presumably because we're all dumb or watching the wrong news sources or something.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      > a bad-faith reply to guelo, who was the one trying to tell us "how it really is." Please explain to me how the argument is made in bad faith. You're characterizing their comment in this way because you disagree with their statement, you even go so far as to speculate on a cynical internal thought stream regarding their motivations for posting. To me, it reads like they are making an earnest argument, even if the rhetoric is dismissive.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        root_axis' reply is what I was calling bad faith: "Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony." This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion.
        root_axis 9y ago
        You wrote: "I agree, but that's in a bad-faith reply to guelo,". I'm confused as to how that's meant to refer to my comment when I never replied to guelo. > This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion I will admit I misquoted, but the words "discourse" and "discussion" have a nearly identical meaning in this context unless there is a definition of discourse I am not aware of. Can you explain what you mean?
        rhizome 9y ago
        "platform for open discourse" would seem to support that, but this is all so far afield now that I can't muster much energy to continue the thread. I just hate it when people reply like they have the only window into reality. "let me correct you on how things really are."
  - kobeya 9y ago
    I said destroying a platform for open discourse, not what you quoted, and I'll stand by what I said. After a certain noise threshold is reached the platform becomes unusable. I've seen this happen on other sites, sometimes purposefully as a way to influence public opinion but shutting down certain topics.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      "The comments I don't like are noise". Sorry, but I think that sentiment sounds more hostile to the platform than the assertion that one should consider a different point of view on a subject. ballenf's comment was made succinctly and without any personal attacks; just because you disagree with it doesn't mean its noise. I think it's fair to criticize the comment as striking a dismissive tone, but at least it's addressing the substance of the OP's comment, you, on the other hand, categorically dismiss ballenf's comment as noise without taking the intellectual effort to address its substance. That seems a lot closer to noise than anything else up to that point.
      - kobeya 9y ago
        Wow that's disingenuous. No, comments that are off-topic are noise. You want to debate something else (like you're doing now!), go do it in a different thread.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > No, comments that are off-topic are noise. All you're doing here is begging the question. What i'm telling you is that the comment does not meet the definition of "off-topic" and I've explained my reasoning for that, all you've done is repeat the same sentiment that "off-topic comments are noise" which is a completely non-controversial statement that nobody is arguing against. Absent of any further reasoning I am left to assume that you simply do not like the comment. For someone with such a self-righteous attitude regarding the tenants of appropriate discourse, you're sure lacking in respect for fellow commenters by your refusal to provide any justification for flippantly dismissing others comments as "off-topic noise". Normally I expect others to provide reasoning for blanket dismissals, but I suppose you must be the definitive authority on what is and isn't off topic, so everyone who disagrees will just take your word for it and move on. > You want to debate something else (like you're doing now!), go do it in a different thread. Haha, this entire subthread is a direct branch off of your explicitly off-topic comment, yet you're suggesting that I go away because I had the audacity to push back on your blanket dismissal... yet somehow I suspect you don't consider your own replies in this thread to be off-topic noise. I have to respectfully conclude that you're at least twice as disingenuous as a person who will gladly expound on the reasoning behind their arguments.
abiox 9y ago
Well... they were speaking to a behavior. It's a bit murky whether `dislike for changing the subject` is accurately or usefully reduced to `castigating someone else's opinion`.
- root_axis 9y ago
  It is their opinion that the OP's concerns are overshadowed by larger concerns, that's not "changing the subject", it's a disagreement about where priorities should be directed with respect to the events discussed in the article, the subject remains unchanged. It's like someone saying "the senate always votes to raise its own pay whenever republicans are in power!" and someone else replying "they only raised it to match inflation, the real problem is that senators are charged with determining their own salary", then, someone responds with "stop changing the subject". If anyone is "changing the subject" it's the person that instigated a contentious meta-discussion about what is and what's not on topic.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    It is literally changing the subject. Even supposing the new topic is more important, and priorities were misallocated, the topic is still being changed.

BalanceMarx 9y ago

Do you mean that analogies are evil?