astralcodexten.com
I'm generally a fan of "blurry" definitions where something can qualify as X if it fulfills a few of many criteria. I think trying to create hard rules around blurry areas like race and culture is fool's errand, and Scott does a great job laying out how overly strict definitions can go wrong.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Scott is missing the point or has to miss it based on how far he can go.
We aren't dealing with a consistent standard about cultural appropriation but an honor culture than mandates special status and respect about certain special identity groups which is also hostile against other ones like especially white Christians, on the exact basis of sympathy for the first at expense of the later.
Reducing the pro jewish, pro black, or pro native american nationalism, and treating such groups as inherently less deserving of their current status of honor and respect, will reduce the problems of "cultural appropriation".
"Lived Experience" is used mainly to argue that as a black/jewish/brown/whatever I understand certain things about my own people's suffering and reality and shouldn't be challenged, and it would be racist to do that. This is usually an one sided narrative that blames others too much and deflects excessively blame for their group. This should be opposed. People self identifying in such a way, does infringe on the rights of others. They promote extreme identity politics at expense of other groups.
Are there areas where it doesn't and we could tolerate their way of identifying without suffering such consequences? There are, but we should be very careful with that.
Both on the trans issue, and in here, Scott's position leads to siding with the "lived experience" claimants even in the way that their behavior would be harmful towards others. Because the tolerance of their lived experience is weaponized to crush dissent and enforce self serving narratives in their favor, or force people to accept things they consider untrue.
I will also say that while I don't think we should have the cult of personality we got now towards groups like Jews, blacks, and others, I also don't think that Jews, native Americans, or blacks should have to accept peoples who don't fit into their group, in their group. And neither should I.
Even though I don't belong in their group, I really do like to say what I believe is true and not to be forced to say what is untrue. So I am not going to say that Rachel Dolezal is black, because she isn't. Same with the trans issue. The authoritarianism in favor of everyone else accepting their narrative of themselves is something that shouldn't be missed when someone promotes arguments about respecting people's lived experience.
Now, if she wants to live among the black community, I am not going to stop her.
I don't know if he is trolling us deliberately, but he just pulled the Jewish meme of "as a fellow white, it is white people fault", in an article that includes in him a arguing about the importance of his Jewish identity and that there are hoops one must jump to belong to his particular group, or others. Then he argued that we should still be tolerant to edge cases that had a lived experience as part of such groups.
Well, there are various articles and even tweets by Jews saying that they aren't white. And it has been used in relation to this exact debate about how to treat different groups with the arguement that Jews should be treated differently as another oppressed minority.
We also have had various examples of Jews like Jon Steward argue that white people are acting badly and that WE whites have done bad. And then in other instances, Jon argues that Jews and blacks should ally to get whitey.
That is Jews is the US and whites is the OTHER.
it is also unfair to blame singularilly whites for this issue when if only whites voted and decided it would be the more right wing party that would win elections. And:
a) by just blaming whites it covers up for the disproportionate role of Jews, some of which don't identify as white, and others might be willing to still identify as Jews and see whites as hostile other. Whatever the case even if they were to count as white, Jewish whites had had a disproportionate role that ought not be hidden as part of just a general white problem. Especially in regards to NGOs, we see plenty of influential Jewish NGOs that are explicitly Jewish NGO's and I am not aware of influential currently white NGO's as explicitly white NGO's. Indeed some Jewish NGOs like ADL are especially influential and important in promoting this kind of morality of intersectional supremacy under the guise of anti racism, where they even adopted a definition that one can't be racist against whites.
b) Obviously American blacks have had a healthy influence in such debates directly and even more so indirectly.
c) White non Jewish liberals and plenty of supposed moderates and some conservatives to a lesser extend, respect and succumb to the prejudices of groups like blacks or Jews who as community do have their problems of ethnocentric racism in favor of themselves and against their outgroup. By blaming just whites for those issues, Scott who is engaging in identity politics in doing so and fails to be neutral, is repeating this problem of transferred nationalism and of deflecting any blame from non whites, to blame whites.
It is extremely important to understand that transferred nationalism is a key part of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to those who aren't part of those tribes. And actual tribalism for their own group in an intersectional alliance for others who belong there.
Like a white Christian who claims that as a Christian he follows the Torah and so is a Jew and so Jews should open their borders to mass Christian migration, Scott's relation with the broader white ethnic group is more complicated at best. It is in fact hostile in important ways. Plus some of the people he promotes and more strongly associates like Scott Aarronson who calls to replace the red tribe of Texas or Mathew Yglesias who has argued that Israel should have more restrictive jewish migration or that is fine, and the USA should have mass migration to have one billion people, there is a clear seperation between what tribes they prioritise. Yglesias even thought that the election of Trump would result in jews being beaten in the streets.
Like New York Times Goldberg writting "We will replace them", Scott Aarronson's call of replacement was ethnically charged, especially when one reads his response to negative comments, whining about antisemitism. What he wanted was to be able to dish both racism, and extremism against his political opposition without backlash.
The mask of neutral rationalists is hiding the reality underneath.
Ultimately, in relation to the Jews I kind of agree with parts of Scott's view, of showing some tolerance for cases that qualify. There is in fact a biological difference between Europeans and even Ashkenazi Jews. But in a certain more broader white category, Ashkenazi Jews and even some others could fit, there are many Jews in Israel from north africa who are too brown to fit, but most American jews look white enough to fit in a broader white category. And there are American Jews who see whites in general as part of their team and people, in a way that Scott doesn't, and most Jews don't. In their case their Jewish identity is more like another white American subgroup identity.
Historically, before late 19th century and 20th century mass migrations of more nationalistic and anti-european and anti-christian radical Jews, and the organization of a lobby and organizations of such nature, the Jews in the USA fitted more normally as part of the white category and behaved with less antagonism.
For decades, and today many Jews do see themselves us a seperate tribe and have an antagonistic relationship with non Jewish whites. Especially the Jews who matter the most in influence, of powerful organizations. They see whites and Christians as the threatening other. So it is inaccurate and having their cake and eating it too, to consider Jews like Scott as belonging in the same white ethnic category as non Jewish whites. The double standards among Jews about supporting the Jewish ethnostate and restrictive immigration of Jews there, while supporting anti native racism, antiwhite racism and mass migration is rather notable.
Also current mainstream Liberalism is not a neutral political agenda but ethnically charged against white Christians.
Scott has a strong Jewish identity. In Hungary he sides with Soros who sees Europeans as a threat to Jews and other minorities and he supports utterly destructive to survival of european nations mass migrations and calls one of the democratically elected leaders who oppose this, in Orban, with the label dictator. In an article that attacks Orban precisely for opposing mass migration. So please, especially if you are a Jewish liberal/neocon, with a strong Jewish identity, you should stop with the fellow white identification. Just like you wouldn't accept someone with a strong white and Christian identity who was as hostile to Jews as you are to white Christians, doing the same against Jews.
I do think some Jews like Amy Wax do identify with whites in a manner that is respectable and genuine and deeper. And a Jew can also not identify with them but also be more moderate and have a more balanced and just worldview than what is promoted by Scott, or those even worse than him.
TLDR in a general sense, if you belong in a category that is more fuzzy and more on the edge, it matters a great deal, in regards to whether you are part of X, if you are philo-X group and seeing them as your group, and not as antagonistic to your primary identity category. If you have at all another identity, it must be weaker and you ought to compromise and accept the X identity, to belong in X. Of course, if your category isn't even in the edge, then you can't be part of said groups. You still ought to be treated with more respect if you are outside category but friendly, than if you have some commonalities but hostile.
The post, I think, is about creating a consistent standard. People were going off of intuition; better to create a more legible system.
What if a group does create remarkable achievements and stands to deserve honor and respect? Would you be in favour of condemning anyone who does "cultural appropriation" of that group?
You're basically agreeing that cultural appropriation is bad here. Non-members trying to gain entry into the group is a large part of what cultural appropriation is. And the main point of the post is- who does qualify as a person who fits in the group? Someone with certain genetics matching the group, someone with lived experience matching the group, or a combination of both?
When he said it's "white people's fault", I thought he meant more in a way that a lot of white people would identify as natives if they could, because natives are cool. And that he'd probably include a lot of Jews in that group of people who'd want to pretend to be cool Natives. Not that whites are evil racists who try to oppress other races but Jews aren't evil racists. You went on a long tangent about Jews, and I think the point of it was that Jews shouldn't identify as white unless they're primarily white? That feels weird to me, like telling an Italian they shouldn't identify as white unless they place their white identity before their Italian identity.
I disagree. It is about maintaining one sided standards and fails to oppose a fundamental aspect of what created double standards. We are not going to get a consistent standard by not directly opposing the excessive ethnonationalism for progressive stack groups, especially for Jews and blacks. Which is also advocated in basis of lived experience.
To change the current issue you need to address it. By aligning the issue of lived experience, with respecting the people who have lived experience, he gets as further away from what we need to do, which is disrespecting the black, jewish, and other chauvinist perspective. Now, I am not saying to go to the opposite extreme, but having an understanding how we did reach the extremism in favor of blacks, Jews, and others and stopping this, and aknowledging the reality of what happened is fundamental.
Legitimizing "lived experience" gets us away from a consistent standard. We must consider the consequences towards those being asked to accept this.
Scott and the rationalists and EA types, are part of the liberal and Democrat establishment and network. How are they going to get us to consistent standards if their network includes biggest Democratic donors, key rationalists argue to replace the red tribe of texas, they support mass migration at least in part (being charitable that this is just a part of it) due to ethnic hostility and wanting to replace their white and right wing outgroups, willing to support George Soros over Orban, when the first is further away from a consistent standard than the later?
Scott is part of the problem of liberal excesses, and not part of those who are going to effectively reform it. At best he is going to make some limited hangout criticisms while still supporting the faction that has said prejudices. And his limited hangout it still going to be one sided in the same direction, which you could always make excuses for.
This is a misunderstanding. I am saying that people care too much about cultural appropriation because they value the status of these ethnic groups more.
I actually think some level of cultural appropriation is part and parcel of what everyone does, being influenced by everyone else. Especially of the most successful groups.
I do think it is fair to exclude people who don't belong in your group from pretending to belong there.
I do support some desire for some general cultural authenticity and exclusion, but my views are too nuanced to say I fall in the camp with hysteric reactions, and there are as always many grey lines I am unsure about, and certain issues I am more adamant about.
I think we should care less about people doing this at expense of blacks, jews, native americans, etc. The reason there is such a hysterical reaction is precisely because of the racist extremism in favor of them.
Again, try to listen to what I am saying instead of trying to fit it into a narrative about cultural appropriation. Directly denouncing the excess of putting said groups on the pedestal, is the only way we move to consistent standards. While denouncing the people stating this, and not accepting this point is how we allow the inconsistent standards to persist. Cultural appropriation isn't the main lens we should see this. The correct lens is that our issue is one of mainly excessive demanded status for progressive stack groups.
Of which, the supporters of this try to sideline by not acknowledge, or by calling what is happening to be a conspiracy theory.
This isn't to say we shouldn't simultaneously put correct standards on the cultural appropriation issue, in the ways I articulated which covered small aspects of it.
I read the post and articulated my different opinion which actually isn't the opposite from Scott's position, except I don't use lived experience as a term and being more exclusive on broader groups and I think ancestry does matter. And also, I think that focusing on the issues with biggest double standards directly over more irrelevant cases is how you promote good rules. For one can claim to oppose SJWs on say the trans issue, but adopt a SJW party line on Jews or blacks.
American Jews and non Jewish europeans have plenty similiar in their cultures in many ways but have a separate ethnic identity and ideology relating to that. There are important cultural differences too. Different tribes sharing in part cultural aspects, does not change the fact they have differences in culture, but also as ethnic tribes.
It is operating like a spy, or a fifth collumnist which is what "we are white, whites suck" and "we Jews and non whites should work against whites" mentality that I have a problem with.
Accepting different groups on the basis that they are like you, while they retain a different identity, and you suppress yours to accommodate and appease theirs will result in such group dominating yours. While your group loses its self determination and territory and culture.
But this goes further than most of the issues called cultural appropriation. It is about respecting legitimate rights of other groups. Which is not what we got today, but a culture of extremism hiding under pretensions of moderation that is about one sided double standards that are destructive towards non progressive ethnic groups.
I believe you are sanewashing and Scott knows what he is doing and is willingly trying to follow a pretense of being a non radical centrist, while also having a position that is lopsided in a certain direction. Also, I genuinely think it is unfair for Jews like himself with his strong Jewish identity and hostile towards whites perspective to be considered normally belonging to the white ethnic group. And it is also unfair and represents reality inaccurately to blame whites singularilly while covering up for the Jewish role. He deserves to be criticized for promoting "I am white, whites to blame", when singularly blaming whites. He should simply not have said it, rather than trying to justify it.
As I articulated previously, blaming whites because excuses, is the ideology of anti white white liberals and anti white non whites. Which certainly influences people to put a knee in events like the BLM riots, or identify as non white groups to gain benefits.
This ideology can also lead to warped views on foreign conflicts like this ridiculous, entirely one sided racist propaganda by Michael Moore. https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/03/04/michael-moore-palestinians-arent-israels-persecutors-its-been-white-european-christians-slaughtering-jews/
So, I find it weird that you don't have a problem with Scott blaming whites, and are willing to excuse it.
Here is the point that is more nuanced than your paraphrase:
TLDR in a general sense, if you belong in a category that is more fuzzy and more on the edge, it matters a great deal, in regards to whether you are part of X, if you are philo-X group and seeing them as your group, and not as antagonistic to your primary identity category. If you have at all another identity, it must be weaker and you ought to compromise and accept the X identity, to belong in X. Of course, if your category isn't even in the edge, then you can't be part of said groups. You still ought to be treated with more respect if you are outside category but friendly, than if you have some commonalities but hostile.
Why doesn't it feel weird to you that I should accept Scott Aarronson who says replace the red tribe of Texas, or Bret Stephens who says to replace the white working class while being a Jewish chauvinist, or Michele Goldberg that says to replace them as a part of the white category? I find it concerning that you find such views, or Jews who claim they aren't white, are things that shouldn't be relevant to us.
Of course Italians are not in the edge of white category, if we are willing to adopt a broad enough category that would allow most American Jews to belong in it. Those Jews would be at the edge. And if the categorization is narrow enough to put Italians at the edge, then Jews would be outside.
Italians do not have an antagonistic relationship with whites in the same way Jews have. Although whiteness in the USA is partly anglo whiteness coded. But certainly, the value of broader identities does relate to how you treat people on your team. You also sidestepped the Jews who themselves don't identify as white which is really important. Also, unlike Italians, Jews are more on the edge of white identity due to their ancestry, and also their more hostile historical relationship, not being Christians, and having seen Rome historically as their enemy. Italians have been a core part of European and Western civilization. It is in fact the case that unlike Italians, including south Italians, some Jews that are more numerous in Israel than in the USA should be excluded on the basis of not fitting at all in a categorization of whiteness, because they don't look white even in a broader sense.
I would say even for people who more clearly belong there, some element of broader identity and compromise of primary identity must matter too. Historically some of the biggest atrocities have been done by empires against the group they touted as their broader category. Like against working classes and the people for universalist communists. We see the GAE now being incredibly destructive against Europeans, even though they are the backbone of the global american empire. I guess ideologicaly it doesn't claim to be pro european exactly but it has been based mainly on Europeans. It is claiming now to be fighting for Ukrainian self determination.
The imperialist Japanese were Japanese supremacists but also pan-asianists claiming to be fighting for all Asian people against European imperialism. This did not change their atrocities against Chinese. And of course the Nazis were German supremacists and didn't treat various european ethnic groups as part of the same team.
The reality is that there is a serious issue among the Jews of a Jewish supremacist and anti-white Christian ideology. And large double standards. Same for non Jews who have adopted the Jewish perspective.
In the USA, whites are an ethnic group. One that various white groups end up assimilating into. Of course if you are hostile to whites and put your primary identity first and see whites as a threat to your actual people, there is a problem with you being considered white.
It is important to be part of the white team, to not consider white non Jews a threat towards Jews you prioritize, but to see non Jewish whites as your team.
It is also important for your people to not write articles and tweets and say that you aren't white. Especially in respond to controversies like a black Goldberg saying that ww2 violence were inter-white struggles, and then as response many articles trying to promote the party line that Jews aren't white.
Also important to not try to get the Jews treated as part of the non white minorities in terms of diversity benefits and being treated as oppressed.
In addition to articles, it seems most Jews on reddit but majority of Jews are liberals and lean in that direction, subscribe to the Jewish supremacist idea and don't consider themselves as part of a broader white ethnic community. But see whites as those who create a racial caste that oppressed Jews and other minorities, but also want non Jews to not have a problem for Jews relating to Israel, or treated as privilidged. They want Jews to be treated as an oppressed minority and have privileges.
At least one upvoted also considers it a gentile, western supremacist idea. They have a wildly self centered ethnic supremacist ideology that is wildly uncharitable and racist towards non Jews and against white Christians. And just see themselves as victims of discrimination. Distorting history to create a wild one sided story of monstrous other ethnic groups and pure Jews who are just targets of supremacists. Much rhetoric there also in line with Noel Ignatiev's. The truth is that their enemy isn't white supremacists but white moderates and what they want is self hating whites who are Jewish supremacists.
Some also argue for the idea that Jews can't be white due to being middle eastern, which is upvoted there as is upvoted the idea that white supremacists are those unwilling to accept Jews as white when those ideas are in contradiction. Seems that they consider non Jews having standards to be white supremacy. Including a standard that has a problem with this type of racist anti white hostility, and that it matters in not considering them white. Others claim that some Jews look white, and other Jews don't.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/16f2nh0/jews_arearent_white/
So of course they aren't like Italians who don't have the same view of whites and Christians, as the Jews do. I find it completely inexplicable to see this kind of behavior and accept putting said Jews in the white categorization.
Only a subset of Jews that are a minority of Jews who reject such narratives and see themselves genuinely in the same team as white Christians like Amy Wax, have a position that fits white ethnic categorization. Strong Jewish identity due to the commoniality in Jewish ethnocentric narrative of anti european and anti christian narrative, can be in fact an obstacle to this. As I mentioned with the Japanese imperialists and Nazis, supremacist views can be an obstacle for cooperation and peace even for ethnic groups that are more central categories of the broader category, like the Japanese for East Asians, and Germans for Europeans. Although in that case they saw themselves more as the leaders of said groups but also had supremacist ideas that saw other parts of said group as a threat to their ethnic group.
So for Jews, including American Jews to fit into the white categorisation need to get over their extreme dislike of pro whites, europeans, and Christians. And also to stop undermining white identity because Jews are more peripheral to it than other ethnic groups. Jews need to compromise their Jewish ethnonationalism. But even then, only some of them which are mainly American Jews are going to fit, both themselves and in how the see themselves and are seen, many Israeli especially Jews are never going to be seen as white because they don't look white. And that is fine. I am critical of their ethnic chauvinism, Israeli Jews who are brown can be brown, they just need to be more reasonable people and drop anti european and anti christian one sided narratives. Those Jews who try to apply to themselves the categorization white, which are probably the more white looking Jews, are obligated to do that even more so.
Another alternative, is among those of the relatively white looking Ashkenazi who don't want to see other whites as their people, to acknowledge they don't fit into the white ethnic team, but into the Jewish team, and it is fair to be seen as outsiders to the white group and not a white supremacist, or so called antisemitic notion. But making peace with the white team and the fact that non Jewish whites who identify as their own group is a fine thing to exist and also as a group have their rights. Having an honorable and not racist position, instead of the wildly one sided racist propaganda also certain non Jews promote both directly and indirectly by attacking those who have a problem with it.
Applying consistent standards would have us reach the conclusion that Jews like Scott do not pass the criteria to fit in belonging in a white team/ethnic categorization in the same way he belongs in the Jewish categorization. And can not speak for whites being to blame, based on the authenticity of criticizing his own group. While applying those same standards would have us reach that Amy Wax does pass said criteria.
It would also have us reach the conclusion that some individuals are friendly towards groups they don't belong to. Lets take Calvin Robinson who is black, he seems friendly to white English, even though he is not one of them and he opposes mass migration. Of course his views are the opposite from representative among blacks living in Britain.
If Scott identified as white but didn't say it is white people's fault, and had a history of being more balanced and therefore pro white than he has been and was willing to promote something balanced and more reflective of reality, his identification would be more acceptable.
To go back to the general case:
Putting the requirement of friendship towards their outgroups as something that progressive identity groups and their supporters must follow, to fit in various categories like white, or as "anti racist", or "non racist", is going to reduce culture war conflict. And in regards to what is fair towards the group that must accept others, it is important for those trying to fit, to pass criteria and actually fit. In addition to that, to identify with the people they claim the identity of. The most reasonable part of which is not trying to harm, dislike and undermine the group they are trying to join, and claim to belong in. And the only way to have a general rule, is to understand that such rules are today not applied generally but some groups (like Jews or blacks) are allowed excessive exclusivity with cancel culture towards others violating their honor, while for other groups to have standards is treated as the suspect, or supremacist position.
Having to follow such criteria and requirements to fit also has the benefit of being the truth.
You are typing a lot of words and I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. Can you, in one paragraph, describe what bad stuff happens as a result of our current racial and cultural appropriation policies? Then in one paragraph describe what you want the world to look like? Then in one paragraph describe why your model would be better and not have problems?
I just really need something succint and clear.
This reminds me of the assignments to write an essay that reddit mods would give people. I am not going to do that. If you have anything to reply to the points already made, which I spent time to articulate my perspective with various issues then I might reply to that. If you are unable to do so, for whatever reason, including you not understanding them, thinking that they are unclear, or because you do not want to address the argument, that would be fine. But you shouldn't have asked for more. It isn't fine if you are trying to promote "I don't understand you" as an attack, but I am not really going to spend more time over it.
Please respect the time and effort spent by the people you are discussing with here and stop asking me to write significantly more so I make points that you would supposedly find sufficiently understandable to address.
I missed your reply originally and was just going over my old comments.
Anyways, I very much hope you wouldn't spend much time writing 3 paragraphs to clarify the position you already thought over in great detail, enough to write 3234 words(including quotes) in just your previous response. My whole point is I want something short, about 250 words max, that I can actually understand.
I don't know why you comment on this site. I do it because I enjoy being able to think through my thoughts, have others point out any mistakes I make or facts I miss, to convince others of my positions, and to get upvotes. You writing out what's basically a 12 page essay that I can't understand the thesis or conclusion of doesn't accomplish much of that, and I don't know what it did accomplish
You don't have to address everything. You can either disengage in a less rude manner or you could have addressed specific points from a longer post.
Like the argument that cultural appropriation is not the driving force but that racist prejudices in favor of progressive tribes like jews, blacks, and such groups honor being put on a pedestal. And that Scott fails to get away from that.
Or the argument that legitimizing lived experiences is a mistake because the concept is used by such groups to promote narratives of their lived experience that are too demanding and disrespectful of other groups.
Or the argument that Jews as a tendency and Scott Siskind, but not all Jews, tend to not fit into the white American ethnic category due to having a hostility towards white non Jews and very strong nationalism and strong Jewish identity. You brought Italians, I countered with various arguements and points, including explaining how even groups that belong in a certain broader group like ww2 Germans and Japanese through their own excessive ethnic nationalism acted against other Europeans and Asians. The point being that a reduction in Jewish nationalism and more friendly view of white Christians, is a prerequisite to a greater share of (American Jews) them fitting in a broader white American ethnic category, in the way that a few Jews like Amy Wax do fit.
You chose to claim that my argument was entirely incomprehensible. Even though at least some people disagreed, even though one can also be downvoted when they make a valid point.
All of these are points one can engage with. In fact, if I develop them in more detail doesn't even stop you from engaging in a shorter manner. It isn't as if length is always bad, it can be necessary to back certain views down further.
Of course window of opportunity of discussing them is lost since the thread is old and you undermined it by refusing to engage and asking for work. And then additionally trying to imply that I shouldn't be posting because you can't understand what valid reason I might have to be commenting on this site...
There are people who have a different preference to you and prefer to write fewer times and longer posts that raise various different points relating to the discussion subject together. If you genuinely seek to understand others and to learn from mistakes, you either engage with parts of that and ask clarifications where you don't understand. Or if your preference is only shorter posts, then that is part of your preference and you can in fact politely tell people you don't want to engage with something longer without asking them additional work. Maybe you can tolerate only some kind of longer posts. You should try to appreciate that there are people who can get something from posts that you don't understand, nor care for.
The attitude that the other person's writings are completely without merit and questioning why they comment is not an attitude that comes from someone whose motivation is to understand others and learn from their mistakes. But from someone who hates those with strongly different views on certain culture war issues and wants them to not post and tries to undermine them and seeks an excuse to do that and not engage intellectually with others. Maybe there is also something there about not respecting people whose writing style you don't like.
If you really want more understanding, you need to show more patience of other people, or not engage with them if you don't have that. For them not posting would promote less understanding, and me not articulating where you have been wrong would not allow you to learn from your mistakes. If you really want to do that, there is an opportunity there, and the barrier is you not wanting to engage. Indeed, I am also unable to see where my argument might have holes if the other person just asks for more work, instead of addressing at least a part of what is already there.
Whether they disagree with you, or their writing style preference isn't to your liking, or has its own flaws, your response is not the proper way to handle this. Nobody is perfect, so if you made or make in future times less onerous demands on specific points, while engaging with other arguments, I and people in my position would be more willing to accommodate you in part, and interpret that there is something worth engaging with here. That the other person isn't just trolling us, and there is an assurance that we aren't still going to get "you aren't making a point" as a response. Of course it is also fair to ask "what exactly you have a difficulty understanding with this point", and for some back and forth collaborative communication rather that it being an one sided effort.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link