My argument was that suggesting those who have commented on a high tanky comment to actual tanky (tanky_comment:tanky_real) ratio are mostly concern trolls is unhelpful because it writes off dissenting opinions with a simple, if unlikely, solution. I feel you’re shutting down discussion by encouraging others to ignore dissent - ignore them, they’re just trolling.
You responded by refuting paraphrased text whose content is not only absent in my comment, that message can’t even be directly inferred from it, either alone or in conjunction with your original comment. That’s textbook strawman - refuting an argument that isn’t the one being discussed.
Now is that your interpretation, that the consequence of not writing off anyone who has critical observations regarding all the tanky gripe comments as concern trolls is cultivating the sentiment of talking with fascists? If that’s the case, when you skip some steps by not explaining how you came to that conclusion and instead present your interpretation of the consequences as a direct paraphrase of my argument, it comes across as a strawman.
The “There aren’t even that many tankies! You’re just mad at the TRUE leftists!” comments I’m talking about are pretty inevitably from people decrying anti-tankie sentiment in general, not just people saying “Yeah, tankies are shit, but I don’t see them around.” As the latter is considerably rarer, saying that generally they’re just concern trolls voicing that is correct (based on those presumptions). “Generally” doesn’t mean a law, it means a rule of thumb.
This all makes a lot more sense. I’ve had a different experience. I tend to see more comments like your latter, that they’re shit but not around, than the former, although we might frequent different communities. It’s also my opinion so it might be selection bias. Now I understand how we’d both interpret your original comment to have very different implications.
I do apologize, then. I am, even on other issues and in less contentious threads, ‘quick on the draw’, so to speak. I’m sorry for reacting with so much hostility.
No apology necessary, it was a good conversation and gave me some good material to think more about. Thanks for being willing to talk it out, it’s appreciated!
My argument was that suggesting those who have commented on a high tanky comment to actual tanky (tanky_comment:tanky_real) ratio are mostly concern trolls is unhelpful because it writes off dissenting opinions with a simple, if unlikely, solution. I feel you’re shutting down discussion by encouraging others to ignore dissent - ignore them, they’re just trolling.
You responded by refuting paraphrased text whose content is not only absent in my comment, that message can’t even be directly inferred from it, either alone or in conjunction with your original comment. That’s textbook strawman - refuting an argument that isn’t the one being discussed.
Now is that your interpretation, that the consequence of not writing off anyone who has critical observations regarding all the tanky gripe comments as concern trolls is cultivating the sentiment of talking with fascists? If that’s the case, when you skip some steps by not explaining how you came to that conclusion and instead present your interpretation of the consequences as a direct paraphrase of my argument, it comes across as a strawman.
The “There aren’t even that many tankies! You’re just mad at the TRUE leftists!” comments I’m talking about are pretty inevitably from people decrying anti-tankie sentiment in general, not just people saying “Yeah, tankies are shit, but I don’t see them around.” As the latter is considerably rarer, saying that generally they’re just concern trolls voicing that is correct (based on those presumptions). “Generally” doesn’t mean a law, it means a rule of thumb.
This all makes a lot more sense. I’ve had a different experience. I tend to see more comments like your latter, that they’re shit but not around, than the former, although we might frequent different communities. It’s also my opinion so it might be selection bias. Now I understand how we’d both interpret your original comment to have very different implications.
I do apologize, then. I am, even on other issues and in less contentious threads, ‘quick on the draw’, so to speak. I’m sorry for reacting with so much hostility.
No apology necessary, it was a good conversation and gave me some good material to think more about. Thanks for being willing to talk it out, it’s appreciated!