4 ms·

I don't think you're being honest here in the way you're construing my point. It looks like you've re-framed it, made stuff up to make me fit the form of a righ

I don't think you're being honest here in the way you're construing my point. It looks like you've re-framed it, made stuff up to make me fit the form of a right-wing malcontent. Can you point to where I said this was an indisputable fact? If you can't, then that's likely because I said the opposite, which you can see in the line you yourself quoted me on: "which is arguably a career limiting move dressed up as virtuous political posturing." Basically, all this says is that "I think publicly denouncing your employer for political, social, or other reasons might not make you look good in future job applications", and that someone telling you to do so on a highly political podcast might be motivated by more than just warning everyone about a bad boss. When you remove the stuff I didn't say, my point is less easily shoehorned into the right wing perspective you want it to be. It's pretty clear here that this is an opinion, not a retelling of fact. If you don't think this podcast is a little on the hard-line left side, and you don't think encouraging people to publicly quit is a risky move, that's fine. You could argue for that like I argued for this.

p_j_w 5y ago
And you've misconstrued what I've said. You used the airing of the segment as an indisputable piece of evidence in defense of GP's point of CBC being nothing more than left wing propaganda, which it is not. The fact that you threw in the bit about going public being virtue signaling merely makes me find you distrustworthy. The fact that you threw in the weasel word "arguably" and conveniently left out an argument that's more compelling than what you said was arguable simply means I question what you've said even more.
- trutannus 5y ago
  For someone who said they're open to having their views challenged, the tenacity with which you respin other's arguments suggests the opposite. I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. You don't come off as someone who wants to have good faith discussions. Instead you come off as someone who wants to bait people into replying, then go word-for-word through their reply to find any gotcha moment you can to match your spin. In this reply chain for example, you've: - framed me as thinking CBC is far left (a lie) - put words in the mouth of another commenter, - removed critical points from my comment, - simplified my argument to a straw-man, - tried to convert an opinion into a statement of fact by accusing me of just using "weasel words", - inferred my motive, and - accused me of leaving out other arguments. This topic is inherently opinion based. I've been clear that's what I'm offering. Multiple times now you've accused me otherwise. You're free to respectfully disagree with my opinion, but this is neither respectful, nor a discussion of opinion with you at this point. I'm not going to go any further with you down this line of conversation. Have a nice day.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    >I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. I said I'm open to having my mind changed that CBC is not far left and you came up with this whole thing about them talking about how to go public if you quit from a workplace you find sexist as though it's some kind of supporting point. I called it a bad point and now you're crying about it. >then accused me of leaving out other arguments. Did you not?

p_j_w 5y ago

And you've misconstrued what I've said. You used the airing of the segment as an indisputable piece of evidence in defense of GP's point of CBC being nothing more than left wing propaganda, which it is not. The fact that you threw in the bit about going public being virtue signaling merely makes me find you distrustworthy. The fact that you threw in the weasel word "arguably" and conveniently left out an argument that's more compelling than what you said was arguable simply means I question what you've said even more.

trutannus 5y ago
For someone who said they're open to having their views challenged, the tenacity with which you respin other's arguments suggests the opposite. I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. You don't come off as someone who wants to have good faith discussions. Instead you come off as someone who wants to bait people into replying, then go word-for-word through their reply to find any gotcha moment you can to match your spin. In this reply chain for example, you've: - framed me as thinking CBC is far left (a lie) - put words in the mouth of another commenter, - removed critical points from my comment, - simplified my argument to a straw-man, - tried to convert an opinion into a statement of fact by accusing me of just using "weasel words", - inferred my motive, and - accused me of leaving out other arguments. This topic is inherently opinion based. I've been clear that's what I'm offering. Multiple times now you've accused me otherwise. You're free to respectfully disagree with my opinion, but this is neither respectful, nor a discussion of opinion with you at this point. I'm not going to go any further with you down this line of conversation. Have a nice day.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >I see little to no engagement with the argument's content, a lot of objections to form, and a lot of interpretation. I said I'm open to having my mind changed that CBC is not far left and you came up with this whole thing about them talking about how to go public if you quit from a workplace you find sexist as though it's some kind of supporting point. I called it a bad point and now you're crying about it. >then accused me of leaving out other arguments. Did you not?