3 ms·

>Since people are saying the article doesn't, and you are saying it does, it behooves you to demonstrate this. The article stands on its own and I don't have a

>Since people are saying the article doesn't, and you are saying it does, it behooves you to demonstrate this. The article stands on its own and I don't have anything to prove to you. It's funny because while I don't think it's a very well written article, I will (and did) highlight biased within critiques. > Blatantly false. This made me laugh, thank you. Again your bias is showing through and I stand by my original comment on this aspect of language. >It's amazing you draw conclusions about people's gender. Bravo! Spoken like a true alt-right "warrior" mocking liberals with "did you just assume my gender?". Good re-phrasing though. Now I'm not saying you are, but the tone is unmistakable my friend ;) >Throwing in non-sequiturs is not helpful. Ahhh but it was a relevant comparison to your position. You may not like it, but you framed the gendered example the exact way. >And frankly, I do not think you understand what "trite" means. It doesn't mean irrelevant or not worthy of discussion. I used the word exactly how you defined it in your comment. Again you may not like the comparison, but it's your own framing looking back at you. ;) >And as is often the case in such discussions, this seems to be more about you than about LanceH or me. Why would you even tell me/others your criterion for what you would give more salt to? So providing context for others regarding the sentiment of original comment is all about me. Interesting analysis. >We are not in an arena aimed to satisfy your perspective, and you are not doing an adequate job of backing your perspective. Furthermore you are avoiding addressing the comments/arguments made to you, and have not even attempted to acknowledge that you understand the counterarguments Oh I understand your position well enough. It's a decent job, a bit dressed up, but it succumbs under any positive pressure. I'm glad to hear you and your friend are close, and seem share the same biases. Thank you for exemplifying them in your own words. And also thank you for attempting to clarify the original commenters words as I initially thought it was well meaning, this past comment a little less so.

BeetleB 7y ago
I'm sorry, but all I see in your comment is: "I do not want to defend my stance. My positions are obvious so no explanation is needed from my side" "I see bias everywhere, but I won't do anything to try to understand how what I see may not be a bias." "I will attribute intentions to the person I am speaking with and make assumptions about who the person behind the computer is. I will view what (s)he says through that lens that I have chosen to wear. I will not supply any avenue for that person to point out defects in the lens." "Thanks for trying." There is no substance here, so nothing I can respond to.
- dadarepublic 7y ago
  This has been fun and a good chuckle. I needed that so, again, thank you. Let me fix this for you for your own edification: "Please don't refuse to explain your position to me even though I've already proven I won't hear a word you say! I promise I won't listen again." "I can't see my own biases so I can't understand anyone explaining them to me. Please don't try to explain them, it's upsetting!" "I hate it when people peg me with my own words! Just let me use my anonymity to help you ignore my everything I've just said!" waves hands "I resent it when people try to be nice or acknowledge my attempts at communication after I've insulted them, I won't let you!" Oh and your last insult is a real gem... :) "Since I lack real substance in my positions, I cannot see or acknowledge any substance from any alternate point of view" As as side note, brick walls are fun conversation only if you're interested in hearing an echo ;) (Of course that all depends on the acoustics of the space as well but I digress) Regardless of it all I'll say it again, had the original commentor been more altruistic in his take, I'd say you gave thoughtful feedback. I had thought your comments were well-meant initially in regards to clarifying that commenter. I had even acknowledged some ideas (we agree the article was not well written even if we differ on the substance). However by your words it's shown that wasn't your real intention - you being more interested in defending the negative bias of the comment (and it was negative) than the underlying content of the comment. I do wish you well.
- LanceH 7y ago
  The dude is deliberately misquoting my "As far as the article goes there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated to, "reshaped maths"." He leaves off the 'to, "reshaped maths" at the end, changing the meaning entirely. He's trolling hard.
  - dadarepublic 7y ago
    No deliberate misquote. No troll. I was just pointing out what seemed to be bias in you comment. Again, the article was badly written. We just differ in opinion on the substance and therein lies the rub I suppose. In our highly charged social climate this is not surprising. I wish you well.

BeetleB 7y ago

I'm sorry, but all I see in your comment is: "I do not want to defend my stance. My positions are obvious so no explanation is needed from my side" "I see bias everywhere, but I won't do anything to try to understand how what I see may not be a bias." "I will attribute intentions to the person I am speaking with and make assumptions about who the person behind the computer is. I will view what (s)he says through that lens that I have chosen to wear. I will not supply any avenue for that person to point out defects in the lens." "Thanks for trying." There is no substance here, so nothing I can respond to.

dadarepublic 7y ago
This has been fun and a good chuckle. I needed that so, again, thank you. Let me fix this for you for your own edification: "Please don't refuse to explain your position to me even though I've already proven I won't hear a word you say! I promise I won't listen again." "I can't see my own biases so I can't understand anyone explaining them to me. Please don't try to explain them, it's upsetting!" "I hate it when people peg me with my own words! Just let me use my anonymity to help you ignore my everything I've just said!" waves hands "I resent it when people try to be nice or acknowledge my attempts at communication after I've insulted them, I won't let you!" Oh and your last insult is a real gem... :) "Since I lack real substance in my positions, I cannot see or acknowledge any substance from any alternate point of view" As as side note, brick walls are fun conversation only if you're interested in hearing an echo ;) (Of course that all depends on the acoustics of the space as well but I digress) Regardless of it all I'll say it again, had the original commentor been more altruistic in his take, I'd say you gave thoughtful feedback. I had thought your comments were well-meant initially in regards to clarifying that commenter. I had even acknowledged some ideas (we agree the article was not well written even if we differ on the substance). However by your words it's shown that wasn't your real intention - you being more interested in defending the negative bias of the comment (and it was negative) than the underlying content of the comment. I do wish you well.
LanceH 7y ago
The dude is deliberately misquoting my "As far as the article goes there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated to, "reshaped maths"." He leaves off the 'to, "reshaped maths" at the end, changing the meaning entirely. He's trolling hard.
- dadarepublic 7y ago
  No deliberate misquote. No troll. I was just pointing out what seemed to be bias in you comment. Again, the article was badly written. We just differ in opinion on the substance and therein lies the rub I suppose. In our highly charged social climate this is not surprising. I wish you well.