4 ms·

> This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. It might feel like it is subtracting from your sense of being right, which I am not sa

> This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. It might feel like it is subtracting from your sense of being right, which I am not saying you’re definitely not, but I think some readers might find it valuable in terms of reaching to more well-thought-out conclusions. > A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." I'm sorry you felt attacked, that wasn't my intention. Having emotions is a human condition, not a psychological diagnosis, and I thought I made it clear that I didn't find anything demeaning about it. You just can't base your arguments mainly on it though. > Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the person the subject of discussion It so happens you made your personal experience and your feeling about it the grounding of your argument; making rebuttals on that basis is not making it personal, it is actually an argument against making things personal. And at no point I invalidated your experience or emotions or your personhood. > You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I have a local problem. People are arguing about problems in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop doing that. Maybe the readers were mislead when you talked about 4 continents, especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently". It wasn't clear, at least to me, you were interested in talking about the local phenomena. But thanks for clarifying that. Let's get one thing clear though, since we can't read people's minds, it is equally undesirable ascribing intentions of blocking action and other negative predictions salient to you in your mind, to others. So I'll kindly ask you to refrain from that first. > I hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad. I've considered and still I think it would be to the benefit of the community to remove the confusion between the local-global, personal-general, emotional-rational. If you are upset about receiving responses, you always have the option of removing yourself from the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y.

titzer 5y ago
> especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently" I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was someone else. > > don't make the person the subject of discussion Each time I replied I brought the discussion back on topic and strengthened my arguments but your entire reply is about me again, and there is precious little that steer it back to a good resolution. > you always have the option of removing yourself from the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y. There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. I regret this exchange terribly at this point. I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is the only activity that reliably has impact.
- acituan 5y ago
  > > especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently" I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was someone else. Sorry I was confused about this, but the context to which you seemed showed up in defense of; namely a personal "observable"ism as a sufficient means to define the nature of a global phenomena, makes the point stand. > There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. I've been following that meta dialogue very closely and here's what I wish we can agree on. Distraction and subtraction hinges on our personal formulation to solve the problem at hand. My formulation strongly presupposes that rational argumentation can scale through time and people better than an emotional and personal appeal, at least in forums similar to this. Your formulation seems to presuppose that concentrating on the emotionality of your personal experience and impressing the audience to action through that is a better way to get results. You seem to feel any poking holes in the logic is a disservice because it takes away from that concentration of emotions and impressions. To the extent these approaches are at odds (and I don't think they necessarily are) any one could accuse the opponent formulation of being subtractive, distracting, action stopping etc. My plea is for you to see that you're willfully asserting a supremacy of your particular formulation in this meta-dialogue, without clear evidence that it is the case, and with a desire to evacuate alternative formulations out of an open forum. > I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is the only activity that reliably has impact. Since you've shared this, it is fair game to ask about it, and I know it might piss you off but bear with me because it has a point; is it an impact to the environment or impact to your conscience? One could cut their arm to feed the hungry, but how far could that go for making a change? I'm bringing this up because it ties back to my original point of taking time to make sure we have the right formulation. The observable, the immediate, the emotional is super-salient to us but that doesn't automatically mean more true, more effective and ultimately the best thing to follow.

titzer 5y ago

> especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently" I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was someone else. > > don't make the person the subject of discussion Each time I replied I brought the discussion back on topic and strengthened my arguments but your entire reply is about me again, and there is precious little that steer it back to a good resolution. > you always have the option of removing yourself from the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y. There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. I regret this exchange terribly at this point. I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is the only activity that reliably has impact.

acituan 5y ago
> > especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently" I didn't write that, please check the thread. That was someone else. Sorry I was confused about this, but the context to which you seemed showed up in defense of; namely a personal "observable"ism as a sufficient means to define the nature of a global phenomena, makes the point stand. > There is a different, meta-level dialog embedded in our dialog, but this terribly ironic juxtaposition is exactly the kind of distracting, subtractive, thing I meant. I've been following that meta dialogue very closely and here's what I wish we can agree on. Distraction and subtraction hinges on our personal formulation to solve the problem at hand. My formulation strongly presupposes that rational argumentation can scale through time and people better than an emotional and personal appeal, at least in forums similar to this. Your formulation seems to presuppose that concentrating on the emotionality of your personal experience and impressing the audience to action through that is a better way to get results. You seem to feel any poking holes in the logic is a disservice because it takes away from that concentration of emotions and impressions. To the extent these approaches are at odds (and I don't think they necessarily are) any one could accuse the opponent formulation of being subtractive, distracting, action stopping etc. My plea is for you to see that you're willfully asserting a supremacy of your particular formulation in this meta-dialogue, without clear evidence that it is the case, and with a desire to evacuate alternative formulations out of an open forum. > I'll go back to picking up garbage, since in my experience, that is the only activity that reliably has impact. Since you've shared this, it is fair game to ask about it, and I know it might piss you off but bear with me because it has a point; is it an impact to the environment or impact to your conscience? One could cut their arm to feed the hungry, but how far could that go for making a change? I'm bringing this up because it ties back to my original point of taking time to make sure we have the right formulation. The observable, the immediate, the emotional is super-salient to us but that doesn't automatically mean more true, more effective and ultimately the best thing to follow.