4 ms·

> I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. I expect them to deny or

> I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. I expect them to deny or express skepticism about it. Not deflect to a different topic. The logical response to e.g. "do you care about global warming? What should we do about it?" if you are genuinely skeptical would be something like "I'm not convinced it's a problem we need to address", not "of course I care about the environment! I love clean air and water!" as if the question had been about air pollution or water delivery...

brigandish 5y ago
Maybe that's because: a) they do care about the environment b) they get accused of not caring because of their stance on global warming I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial than they don't want to talk about that thing they don't think is worth talking about.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? I think it's quite ridiculous (and frankly, rude) to accuse people of being "tribal" or lacking "substance" just because they you a couple quick comments summarizing years of events and didn't spend hours preemptively writing you an essay with detailed analysis and citations. And bear in mind that jumping to -isms accusations so quickly itself has the exact opposite effect of the one you're hoping for.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? Firstly, I wasn't saying anything about you but the language you are using. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of lacking substance, I wrote that your argument lacked evidence. Lastly, your reaction is over the top, which is also quite a tribalistic response to being challenged. Yes, now I'm making an insinuation, but that's your own fault for your own faulty assumptions. If you want, we can dial down the temperature and discuss things at a better level, or we can just leave it, not that I believe there's much to discuss other than why you're jumping to so many assumptions about the people you disagree with (or who disagree with you) and their bad intentions.

brigandish 5y ago

Maybe that's because: a) they do care about the environment b) they get accused of not caring because of their stance on global warming I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial than they don't want to talk about that thing they don't think is worth talking about.

dataflow 5y ago
> I think it's the language of a tribalist to say your opponent is deflecting without something more substantial Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? I think it's quite ridiculous (and frankly, rude) to accuse people of being "tribal" or lacking "substance" just because they you a couple quick comments summarizing years of events and didn't spend hours preemptively writing you an essay with detailed analysis and citations. And bear in mind that jumping to -isms accusations so quickly itself has the exact opposite effect of the one you're hoping for.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Have you considered there might be a different explanation here than me lacking "substance" and you somehow being full of it? Ironically, have you considered you might be the one instantly jumping to a conclusion about me just based on a couple offhand internet comments on a discussion that's barely even started? Firstly, I wasn't saying anything about you but the language you are using. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of lacking substance, I wrote that your argument lacked evidence. Lastly, your reaction is over the top, which is also quite a tribalistic response to being challenged. Yes, now I'm making an insinuation, but that's your own fault for your own faulty assumptions. If you want, we can dial down the temperature and discuss things at a better level, or we can just leave it, not that I believe there's much to discuss other than why you're jumping to so many assumptions about the people you disagree with (or who disagree with you) and their bad intentions.