4 ms·

Respectfully, it is impossible to engage in thoughtful discussion with you, for a number of reasons. 1. Your logic breaks down very quickly in simplistic, obvi

Respectfully, it is impossible to engage in thoughtful discussion with you, for a number of reasons. 1. Your logic breaks down very quickly in simplistic, obvious ways, but you are sure of it. So, anyone seeking genuine, thoughtful discussion is immediately put off, as it's clear they'll spend 80% of the discussion pointing out the flaws in your thinking, where you haven't addressed the salient points, etc. It's equally clear that it won't matter. 2. Your thinking itself is simplistic and child-like. You see in black and white (no pun intended), so are incapable of reasoning about complexity in the world or having a discussion that involves nuance; 3. But your black and white reasoning is laced with bias that you also cannot see. You know nothing of epistemology or self-questioning or challenging beliefs (your own or others'). 4. You don't follow humor or irony. It appears to be completely lost on you. I'm sure you'd reply defensively with some commentary on the quality of the humor but, of course, that would miss the point too. 5. You are transparent without being aware of it. In short, the effect here is that "fairness" for you flows in one direction, which you justify with poor logic, riddled with inconsistencies that are rationalized away by your biases. Given your initial comments, I didn't expect to change your mind or even slightly nudge the door ajar. I responded with only the hope that my reply might provide something for passersby to quietly consider. But, your subsequent replies have been of even poorer quality than I could have imagined, and increasingly so. Take care.

mancerayder 2y ago
Not the original poster you're replying to, but this reads like a frustrated meta-analysis of someone's opinions, dismissed with ad-hominems, and avoidant of possibly uncomfortable counter-points. It's more of a comparative literature analysis than a debate reply, if I am honest. You also didn't reply to almost any of the points made against DEI above, sticking to pre-existing talking points.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >Not the original poster... You write remarkably similarly to OP and your "logic" follows closely, including your commitment to precisely the same fallacies and your complaints that no one wants to waste their time engaging with voluminous talking points, backed by poor reasoning. Still, my response explained exactly what was wrong with OP's comments and why it was futile to engage. With proper reasoning ability, one could overlay each of my points with OP's, and understand how they were being directly refuted. You also have missing that fact in common with OP, as well as a very specific brand of mental laziness. Likewise, your underlying beliefs themselves are the same, as expressed here and elsewhere. And, you were impressively quick to reply to my comment, given that the thread is somehat nested and obscure. If you are not OP, in fact, then you are functionally. So, let's make this quick: consider my prior comments apply to you as well.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    It's not me. I've had bouts of suspicion when I've been addressed by multiple people as well but I guess we just underestimate the odds of someone getting interested in an ongoing thread. I still haven't read all the comments yet but I wanted to drop that here, and also suggest that you just disagree with me because you have different values and/or don't understand the logical consequences of what you're agitating for. By the way: >Given your initial comments, I didn't expect to change your mind or even slightly nudge the door ajar. I responded with only the hope that my reply might provide something for passersby to quietly consider. It seems that a passerby did come along as you predicted and they think I'm more in the right than you are.
wakawaka28 2y ago
Respectfully, I think you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the thoroughly sound logical arguments I've put forward about the true consequences of what you're proposing. >Your thinking itself is simplistic and child-like. You see in black and white (no pun intended), so are incapable of reasoning about complexity in the world or having a discussion that involves nuance; I recognize that historical race relations create a complex emotional landscape for people who are similar in appearance to oppressed people in the past. But that is part of life. We need to move forward and not create more problems by taking from the innocent to prop up non-victims. >You don't follow humor or irony. It appears to be completely lost on you. I'm sure you'd reply defensively with some commentary on the quality of the humor but, of course, that would miss the point too. I didn't detect any humor in your writing, besides the original snarky comment that started this. And just because it's snarky doesn't mean that you don't mean to actually insinuate awful things about people. >You are transparent without being aware of it. As far as I'm concerned, a majority of people blaming white people for everything are hucksters. But there are quite a few misguided souls who truly bought the lie that there's a huge scheme out there to oppress them because of what they look like. There are always a few racists in the world, but at this point I think most of them (even in our "majority white" country) are not white. >But, your subsequent replies have been of even poorer quality than I could have imagined, and increasingly so. Take care. I imagine you have been drinking this whole time and you're at the bottom of the bottle now and really losing your grip on reality. Take care.

mancerayder 2y ago

Not the original poster you're replying to, but this reads like a frustrated meta-analysis of someone's opinions, dismissed with ad-hominems, and avoidant of possibly uncomfortable counter-points. It's more of a comparative literature analysis than a debate reply, if I am honest. You also didn't reply to almost any of the points made against DEI above, sticking to pre-existing talking points.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>Not the original poster... You write remarkably similarly to OP and your "logic" follows closely, including your commitment to precisely the same fallacies and your complaints that no one wants to waste their time engaging with voluminous talking points, backed by poor reasoning. Still, my response explained exactly what was wrong with OP's comments and why it was futile to engage. With proper reasoning ability, one could overlay each of my points with OP's, and understand how they were being directly refuted. You also have missing that fact in common with OP, as well as a very specific brand of mental laziness. Likewise, your underlying beliefs themselves are the same, as expressed here and elsewhere. And, you were impressively quick to reply to my comment, given that the thread is somehat nested and obscure. If you are not OP, in fact, then you are functionally. So, let's make this quick: consider my prior comments apply to you as well.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  It's not me. I've had bouts of suspicion when I've been addressed by multiple people as well but I guess we just underestimate the odds of someone getting interested in an ongoing thread. I still haven't read all the comments yet but I wanted to drop that here, and also suggest that you just disagree with me because you have different values and/or don't understand the logical consequences of what you're agitating for. By the way: >Given your initial comments, I didn't expect to change your mind or even slightly nudge the door ajar. I responded with only the hope that my reply might provide something for passersby to quietly consider. It seems that a passerby did come along as you predicted and they think I'm more in the right than you are.

wakawaka28 2y ago

Respectfully, I think you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the thoroughly sound logical arguments I've put forward about the true consequences of what you're proposing. >Your thinking itself is simplistic and child-like. You see in black and white (no pun intended), so are incapable of reasoning about complexity in the world or having a discussion that involves nuance; I recognize that historical race relations create a complex emotional landscape for people who are similar in appearance to oppressed people in the past. But that is part of life. We need to move forward and not create more problems by taking from the innocent to prop up non-victims. >You don't follow humor or irony. It appears to be completely lost on you. I'm sure you'd reply defensively with some commentary on the quality of the humor but, of course, that would miss the point too. I didn't detect any humor in your writing, besides the original snarky comment that started this. And just because it's snarky doesn't mean that you don't mean to actually insinuate awful things about people. >You are transparent without being aware of it. As far as I'm concerned, a majority of people blaming white people for everything are hucksters. But there are quite a few misguided souls who truly bought the lie that there's a huge scheme out there to oppress them because of what they look like. There are always a few racists in the world, but at this point I think most of them (even in our "majority white" country) are not white. >But, your subsequent replies have been of even poorer quality than I could have imagined, and increasingly so. Take care. I imagine you have been drinking this whole time and you're at the bottom of the bottle now and really losing your grip on reality. Take care.