> I assume at this point that you're being paid to shill some political viewpoint on the internet
I don't agree with Walter on this issue, but a cursory Google of who you're talking to should indicate how ridiculous this statement is. You are profoundly out of line and you owe him an apology. (You'd owe anyone an apology, but this is particularly silly of you.)
I'm sorry but starting with this you lost all credibility in my eyes immediately. Which would be no problem if you supported your statements with links to independent sources, but you did not.
> I encourage you to not stop reading after he called you a loon. He dedicates a few paragraphs to explain what he feels is wrong with your talk.
What makes you think I stopped reading? How do you think I knew that he was attacking a straw man (and hence making a fool of himself)?
> read the comments
Well, that's nice. I feel vindicated. But that doesn't change the fact that he published a totally unwarranted ad hominem attack directed at me based on incomplete information and never retracted it, let alone apologized for it. (Sorry, but a comment doesn't count. Most people don't read the comments.) So I stand by my position that his behavior was unprofessional to say the least.
>> I usually and deliberately poke popular opinions to get a good discussion out of it and it has been disappointing.
Perhaps it's apparent on some level to your audience that you're doing this to raise some sort response, not because you have a strong affinity for a particular position? The last thing I want to do is gorge on the junkfood emotion of false outrage.
I believe you are commenting in an entirely politically-motivated way and are not responding in good faith to my reply to your original comment. At this point I don't think we can have a productive conversation, so I wish you the best and I'm going to move on to a better use of my time.
> Blind appeals to authority are not appropriate here.
True! Duly upvoted. Although I feel his arguments are closely reasoned and don’t agree with your point. And the person I responded to brought nothing you to the table.
Where is it that Walter is obviously wrong, by the way? Not trying to be argumentative. I just did not see the holes in his argument that you do.
>But at the end of the day, your stance is already siding with someone by default, the side in power
This is highly presumptuous mischaracterization of my statement and intentions. We're discussing something online, unless you have a crystal ball I'd say you've made a bit of a leap here.
> I'm saying it was worth including this person's own statement of their political views as well.
It is an interesting situation, because I dislike the idea that my defence of my own position is insubmissible, vs the interpretation of some third party of what they claim I think. Certainly there are positions I have on sensitive topics that could be trivially misrepresented.
On the other hand, just taking my 'PR' response is dangerous as it allows me to potentially Rewrite history / spin truth etc.
I lean towards the right to state: "author claims to be misunderstood and accusations are unfounded". I can see both sides a bit though
>"you are wrong, way wrong, and stupid, and I cant explain why because you are not capable of understanding. Basically, I just want to write on the internet how poorly I thinknof your character simply because I disagree with your political opinion"
I am glad you feel that way.
Since you are so righteous without reason, I hope that today you set out to contribute something concretely good to humanity.
> I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.
So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously?
I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it.
That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
>Do you actually believe this, or are you using it as an insult?
I believe this, and mean it more as a matter of fact in a literal sense, and not as an insult.
>This hurts your comment so badly, especially as a leading statement.
To each their own. I know my audience. I lean conservative on a heavily west coast populated forum. I'm usually pretty easy going, but did draw a line in the sand on this. If every SE community trends this way, I'll pursue other interests.
>to be so single-minded about the political spectrum is childish
Uh, what? You've utterly misunderstood; knowing nothing about me hasn't stopped you insulting me.. I consider myself left-wing, I just had never seen anything remotely like that on reddit, still haven't - not that I've seen much of reddit. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. Not very interested in your recommendations after that, thanks; who would be?
No, and indeed in the root comment I expressed that. My beef is with his lack of critical thinking in the application of his abstract analysis, and with his complete rejection of the idea that people he agrees with politically might be guilty of the same thing at the moment.
I don't agree with Walter on this issue, but a cursory Google of who you're talking to should indicate how ridiculous this statement is. You are profoundly out of line and you owe him an apology. (You'd owe anyone an apology, but this is particularly silly of you.)
reply