3 ms·

- According to an unapologetically left wing perspective on what happened. That doesn't mean even a word of that is true, any more than a word of what Kirk said

- According to an unapologetically left wing perspective on what happened. That doesn't mean even a word of that is true, any more than a word of what Kirk said was true. Who is to say whether the college student's positions were actually nuanced? Is well-researched just "agreed with my perspective" or a fact? (Edit: I missed the hyperlink somehow, point still remains this is an interpretation dance.)

crtasm 1y ago
It's a quote from TFA and links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
orwin 1y ago
> this is an interpretation dance Honestly, to me once someone start to fight over semantics on words that are well understood, he is a grifter and does not deserve my time. He can't really make his point because his argument fell apart, and rather than integrating the critique on his argument to make it stronger or even (i've never seen it), changing his point of view, he has to comeback to semantics to remake the same argument without even thinking on how to integrate the critique. I'm not saying this guy is like that, i honestly don't watch US culture war (unless they critique the best Olympics ceremonies i've seen because they don't like/understand French culture) But i've seen some weird Jubilee videos, content about one of the current genocide, and i follow my country's politics. Often (not always), "debate bros" are just people who, when they lost the argument, start to debate over semantics. I'd rather listen to a poorly-informed student than listen to that kind of person.
- TrnsltLife 1y ago
  > fight over semantics on words that are well understood Like "woman"?
  - orwin 1y ago
    Exactly. I don't care what semantic games you play. People who argue on semantics are uninteresting most of the time (unless the argument is about history basically, but even in this case, it's often a waste of time). If someone starts to argue with me and then ask me 'whats the true definition of X', i just tune him out. If he ask me "What did Paxton meant when he used the word 'collaboration' according to you?", then I'll talk with him, because I know he can have interesting and meaningful discussions.

crtasm 1y ago

It's a quote from TFA and links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRLV5Is-Pc4

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

orwin 1y ago

> this is an interpretation dance Honestly, to me once someone start to fight over semantics on words that are well understood, he is a grifter and does not deserve my time. He can't really make his point because his argument fell apart, and rather than integrating the critique on his argument to make it stronger or even (i've never seen it), changing his point of view, he has to comeback to semantics to remake the same argument without even thinking on how to integrate the critique. I'm not saying this guy is like that, i honestly don't watch US culture war (unless they critique the best Olympics ceremonies i've seen because they don't like/understand French culture) But i've seen some weird Jubilee videos, content about one of the current genocide, and i follow my country's politics. Often (not always), "debate bros" are just people who, when they lost the argument, start to debate over semantics. I'd rather listen to a poorly-informed student than listen to that kind of person.

TrnsltLife 1y ago
> fight over semantics on words that are well understood Like "woman"?
- orwin 1y ago
  Exactly. I don't care what semantic games you play. People who argue on semantics are uninteresting most of the time (unless the argument is about history basically, but even in this case, it's often a waste of time). If someone starts to argue with me and then ask me 'whats the true definition of X', i just tune him out. If he ask me "What did Paxton meant when he used the word 'collaboration' according to you?", then I'll talk with him, because I know he can have interesting and meaningful discussions.