3 ms·
> I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names The only com
by marcellus23 5y ago
> I continue to hold this up as an examples of how polite and rational conversation would have been a much better bet rather than calling me names
The only comment in your thread that you responded to was the one calling you names. You didn’t respond (as of this posting, at least) to any of the half dozen other comments that bring up valid points. Who’s drawing the conversation away?
- roenxi 5y agoI don't have anything to add about those posts; they're making actual points. Often good ones, with reasoning. But this thread was especially to point out this this sort of policy-by-literary-allusion is stupid and also exactly the sort of thing people would try once Dickens quotes get flying.
- Talanes 5y agoYou were content to play the policy-by-literary-allusion game in your top comment. It feels like you only developed an opinion against it after being insulted-by-literary-allusion.
- roenxi 5y agoQuite possibly, it certainly helped crystallise to me why the original article rubbed me the wrong way. It is a relatively subtle problem but argument-by-Dickensian-allegory isn't a path to better politics. Objectives and arguments rooted in the 21st century are a much better approach. It is a setup that subtly frames opposition as "well you're just like the antagonist of a novel!" rather than trying to respectfully sift through the relevant merits and trade-offs. That isn't a good way to think about policy.