4 ms·
> 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 characte
by 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 agoroot_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 agoYou 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."