3 ms·

> At the risk of being snarky myself Did you have an actual counter-argument? (article referenced in the image: https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/30/debate-exposes-b

> At the risk of being snarky myself Did you have an actual counter-argument? (article referenced in the image: https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/30/debate-exposes-bigotry-of-wokeness/ https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/30/debate-exposes-bigotry-of-wok...) You're kind of proving my point here. On Reddit this would get downvote censored with no one even attempting to come up with a coherent counterargumemt, just people using downvote as a disagree button, squashing out all unorthodox views, and breeding the hivemind.

Ukv 3y ago
> Did you have an actual counter-argument? To the positions within the screenshots ("the Matrix" targeting Andrew Tate, "woke bullshit", etc.), or the discussion here on whether your site has/will retain a "high standard of quality" in its discussion? The latter was what I'm commenting on, by implying that the site's owner posting a ragebait bias-affirming Youtube video followed by a comment repeatedly calling the other side "idiots" is already a very low bar. > no one even attempting to come up with a coherent counterargumemt I wouldn't be opposed to a debate on one of the former if there's something concrete to argue against, but I don't think debating the former is necessary for the latter point (people against trans women in women's sports can still see that this in particular is low-quality discussion) and here probably isn't the place to do so.
- JSavageOne 3y ago
  I actually didn't see you'd referenced the Andrew Tate article as well in your image (full article: https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/28/why-we-need-andrew-tate/ https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/28/why-we-need-andrew-tate/) I was referring to this statement you'd made: "I'd claim the mission is a failure right from user #1: https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png - the quality standard of ad-hominem soapboxing is already near rock bottom." You seem to be claiming that the quality is low, so I was wondering if you had any specific counter-arguments to anything stated in those two comments/articles you referenced in your image. Or did you just want to criticize the 1,800 word and 540 word articles because you found the language not to your taste? Personally I'm more interested in the content of one's arguments rather than simply the presentation, but to each their own.
  - Ukv 3y ago
    > I was referring to this statement you'd made: "I'd claim the mission is a failure right from user #1: https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png - the quality standard of ad-hominem soapboxing is already near rock bottom." > You seem to be claiming that the quality is low, so I was wondering if you had any specific counter-arguments to anything stated in those two comments/articles you referenced in your image. I try not to determine quality of an argument by how much I disagree with it. E.G: Many high-quality papers have thorough rebuttals, and many rants flaming the other side will happen to agree with my stance, or alternatively have no clear argument structure and nothing much concrete to refute. What's in the screenshot falls towards the latter. Possibly I could take the repeated "idiots" as an attempt at a point, and so reference papers generally finding correlation in the opposite direction [0][1], which can in turn be refuted (hopefully with sources), but again I don't think this is the place for that argument - make a post on your site with opening statement or something. [0]: http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability.pdf http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-an... [1]: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf > because you found the language not to your taste If you're aiming for high quality discussion, I'd claim throwing around ad-hominems does run counter to that aim, and that debate (for which you'd need to attract people you disagree with to the site) is generally more productive when civil. > Personally I'm more interested in the content of one's arguments rather than simply the presentation, but to each their own. For the argument itself, ignoring discussion quality, you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side, but not just have a string of insults in place of making a good argument. This is about it's content. You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists).
    - JSavageOne 3y ago
      You literally have addressed nothing in the comments/articles you criticized, and are simply dismissing a combined 2,340 words across two articles as "ad hominem". Just admit that you aren't interested in debating any of the points raised, and are simply offended by the aggressive language. That's fine, but you're not refuting anything or engaging in any form of debate. > you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side There is clearly an argument here in addition to the use of the word "idiots". 2,340 words of ad hominem would be pretty boring and meaningless. > You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists). I'm not asking for generic feedback on writing a research paper here. You posted a screenshot of some comments/articles claiming they were low quality, and have failed to demonstrate how any of the points made in the articles were incorrect. In any case I appreciate the feedback. It doesn't surprise me that aggressive language is polarizing and turns some people off. I personally don't have a problem with that though so long as one also presents an argument. I personally think intensity can actually be a positive because it's more entertaining. For example had the comments/articles instead been written in a more dry and neutral tone, I highly doubt you would've bothered to comment at all.

Ukv 3y ago

> Did you have an actual counter-argument? To the positions within the screenshots ("the Matrix" targeting Andrew Tate, "woke bullshit", etc.), or the discussion here on whether your site has/will retain a "high standard of quality" in its discussion? The latter was what I'm commenting on, by implying that the site's owner posting a ragebait bias-affirming Youtube video followed by a comment repeatedly calling the other side "idiots" is already a very low bar. > no one even attempting to come up with a coherent counterargumemt I wouldn't be opposed to a debate on one of the former if there's something concrete to argue against, but I don't think debating the former is necessary for the latter point (people against trans women in women's sports can still see that this in particular is low-quality discussion) and here probably isn't the place to do so.

JSavageOne 3y ago
I actually didn't see you'd referenced the Andrew Tate article as well in your image (full article: https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/28/why-we-need-andrew-tate/ https://jsavage.xyz/2022/09/28/why-we-need-andrew-tate/) I was referring to this statement you'd made: "I'd claim the mission is a failure right from user #1: https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png - the quality standard of ad-hominem soapboxing is already near rock bottom." You seem to be claiming that the quality is low, so I was wondering if you had any specific counter-arguments to anything stated in those two comments/articles you referenced in your image. Or did you just want to criticize the 1,800 word and 540 word articles because you found the language not to your taste? Personally I'm more interested in the content of one's arguments rather than simply the presentation, but to each their own.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > I was referring to this statement you'd made: "I'd claim the mission is a failure right from user #1: https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png https://i.imgur.com/57BhkkJ.png - the quality standard of ad-hominem soapboxing is already near rock bottom." > You seem to be claiming that the quality is low, so I was wondering if you had any specific counter-arguments to anything stated in those two comments/articles you referenced in your image. I try not to determine quality of an argument by how much I disagree with it. E.G: Many high-quality papers have thorough rebuttals, and many rants flaming the other side will happen to agree with my stance, or alternatively have no clear argument structure and nothing much concrete to refute. What's in the screenshot falls towards the latter. Possibly I could take the repeated "idiots" as an attempt at a point, and so reference papers generally finding correlation in the opposite direction [0][1], which can in turn be refuted (hopefully with sources), but again I don't think this is the place for that argument - make a post on your site with opening statement or something. [0]: http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability.pdf http://davesource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-an... [1]: https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf > because you found the language not to your taste If you're aiming for high quality discussion, I'd claim throwing around ad-hominems does run counter to that aim, and that debate (for which you'd need to attract people you disagree with to the site) is generally more productive when civil. > Personally I'm more interested in the content of one's arguments rather than simply the presentation, but to each their own. For the argument itself, ignoring discussion quality, you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side, but not just have a string of insults in place of making a good argument. This is about it's content. You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists).
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    You literally have addressed nothing in the comments/articles you criticized, and are simply dismissing a combined 2,340 words across two articles as "ad hominem". Just admit that you aren't interested in debating any of the points raised, and are simply offended by the aggressive language. That's fine, but you're not refuting anything or engaging in any form of debate. > you can in theory still present a strong argument in addition to insulting the other side There is clearly an argument here in addition to the use of the word "idiots". 2,340 words of ad hominem would be pretty boring and meaningless. > You could improve the argument, for example, by offering sources/statistics, having a clear argument structure, or making a sincere attempt to engage with material on the other side (plenty of accessible feminist literature exists). I'm not asking for generic feedback on writing a research paper here. You posted a screenshot of some comments/articles claiming they were low quality, and have failed to demonstrate how any of the points made in the articles were incorrect. In any case I appreciate the feedback. It doesn't surprise me that aggressive language is polarizing and turns some people off. I personally don't have a problem with that though so long as one also presents an argument. I personally think intensity can actually be a positive because it's more entertaining. For example had the comments/articles instead been written in a more dry and neutral tone, I highly doubt you would've bothered to comment at all.