Anonymous #2 17h

My interpretation is that people should have dialogue instead of immediately devolving into personal attacks and knee jerk reactions

5

Anonymous #2 17h

Exhibit A. Thank you very much for being a perfect example of what I’m taking about in this very post!

0

Anonymous OP 17h

I think asking you what exactly you’re talking about is in fact “trying curiosity” and I have not accused you of anything. Unless you think it’s an accusation to say that a statement is vague. You made a very broad statement about nothing and nobody in particular, and then put a pull-back in that very same statement. So yeah, I wanna know exactly what you mean. The word for that impulse to ask for more information is “curiosity.”

1

Anonymous #2 17h

Bro and u responded kindly that was the example…? Hello?

1

Anonymous OP 17h

It was all a sequence embodying the post. I-

1

Anonymous #1 17h

Yeah, ideally, people should have a dialogue with people they disagree with, sure. But there’s a TON of people who simply do not engage in good faith, and are therefore impossible to effectively talk with. After a hundred bad-faith interactions, people come to assume that their ideological opponents just act that way all the time. It’s also hard to maintain a conversation when someone defends the indefensible, and what is indefensible is gonna differ for each interlocutor.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

I’m still not seeing any specificity here, can you say what prompted this post? I don’t see how I demonstrated what your post is about, I didn’t make any personal attacks or accusations. I don’t even know enough about what you believe to begin to make any of those sorts of things. I called your statement vague, but that’s not personal. That’s about the statement, not about the person who made it.

1