3 ms·

I think you simply misunderstand the comment. I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be d

I think you simply misunderstand the comment. I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be disregarded, or why you don't think "bootlicker" is an undesirable category. Please note that I'm not saying you shouldn't read a comment history. I'm saying, you shouldn't weaponize a comment history. If you examine the sibling thread to this one, I think you'll find that the commenter clarifies that they do, in fact, hold this person's views in contempt. Frankly when I skimmed the comment history in question I did find comments that made me go "yikes!", but that doesn't mean we engage in a no holds barred rhetorical cage match. As I've argued, that does harm to the conversation and community and fails to reach the people who should be reached.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be disregarded, or why you don't think "bootlicker" is an undesirable category. I do see that. But that doesn't mean the part before "bootlicker" was wrong! > If you examine the sibling thread to this one, I think you'll find that the commenter clarifies that they do, in fact, hold this person's views in contempt. Yes, the views. They're applying scrutiny to the specific views and not anything else about the person, which is the correct thing to do. You can say they are doing the scrutiny wrong, but that's different from scrutinizing the wrong thing. They are scrutinizing the right thing. They're not bringing in irrelevant information to discredit. They're only bringing in information on the directly relevant views. tl;dr "what to scrutinize" and "how to scrutinize" are different things. The way they did the former, "referencing views from another thread" but only on the same topic, was fine. The stuff like "bootlicker" is the latter.
- maxbond 4y ago
  You're picking and choosing what parts of the comment to base your opinion on, and in the process you've transformed it into an entirely different comment. As a result the first half of your comment contradicts the second. At this point the ball is just entirely in your court; if you're going to deliberately misread this comment then there's nothing more I can do or say to convince you you've made an error.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I have no idea how you think my comment is contradictory. Maybe just focus on the tl;dr? You accused someone of bringing in outside information they should not have. I assert that, while they were very rude, the information they brought in was correct to bring in. What am I missing? I promise promise promise I am not deliberately misreading anything. If we go back to the very start, you said "I don't think it's okay to call someone a bootlicker, or to reference their views from one thread in another". I'm not defending the bootlicker thing! I'm defending the referencing of views in this case, because and only because they are directly relevant. You said two things were wrong, I think one of them is not wrong. That's not "picking and choosing" in any negative way. I don't know why you ever thought I was defending the bootlicking accusation. But I didn't accuse you of misreading me on purpose.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> I don't know how you are reading the word "bootlicker" and not taking the implication that their views are to be disregarded, or why you don't think "bootlicker" is an undesirable category. I do see that. But that doesn't mean the part before "bootlicker" was wrong! > If you examine the sibling thread to this one, I think you'll find that the commenter clarifies that they do, in fact, hold this person's views in contempt. Yes, the views. They're applying scrutiny to the specific views and not anything else about the person, which is the correct thing to do. You can say they are doing the scrutiny wrong, but that's different from scrutinizing the wrong thing. They are scrutinizing the right thing. They're not bringing in irrelevant information to discredit. They're only bringing in information on the directly relevant views. tl;dr "what to scrutinize" and "how to scrutinize" are different things. The way they did the former, "referencing views from another thread" but only on the same topic, was fine. The stuff like "bootlicker" is the latter.

maxbond 4y ago
You're picking and choosing what parts of the comment to base your opinion on, and in the process you've transformed it into an entirely different comment. As a result the first half of your comment contradicts the second. At this point the ball is just entirely in your court; if you're going to deliberately misread this comment then there's nothing more I can do or say to convince you you've made an error.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I have no idea how you think my comment is contradictory. Maybe just focus on the tl;dr? You accused someone of bringing in outside information they should not have. I assert that, while they were very rude, the information they brought in was correct to bring in. What am I missing? I promise promise promise I am not deliberately misreading anything. If we go back to the very start, you said "I don't think it's okay to call someone a bootlicker, or to reference their views from one thread in another". I'm not defending the bootlicker thing! I'm defending the referencing of views in this case, because and only because they are directly relevant. You said two things were wrong, I think one of them is not wrong. That's not "picking and choosing" in any negative way. I don't know why you ever thought I was defending the bootlicking accusation. But I didn't accuse you of misreading me on purpose.