It’s their go-to move. They’ll do it every time. Redefine the terms and words in ways that are favorable to their positions. It’s what one does when they have no objectively sound arguments. Again, pay attention, watch for it. They do it every single time.
Precisely my point. My degree in poly sci means nothing, you guys somehow “know” better than me.
It’s a huge part of why no one who matters actually takes you seriously.
You are not intellectually serious people, you don’t actually care about honest and open discussion of ideas, you are far more interested in policing language than you are in constructive conversation.
And yet the inherent assumption remains; either people agree with you, or they don’t actually understand the concepts you are promulgating, or they are objectively evil and malintentioned.
I would argue that there is in fact a third alternative wherein people of perfectly good faith fully understand your arguments but still find them wanting or unsatisfactory on well-reasoned and logical grounds.
It’s your insistence on rejecting this third possibility that I find so objectionable and fallacious.
It’s their go-to move. They’ll do it every time. Redefine the terms and words in ways that are favorable to their positions. It’s what one does when they have no objectively sound arguments. Again, pay attention, watch for it. They do it every single time.
We came up with the definitions half the time, yall change it because you’re politically illiterate
Precisely my point. My degree in poly sci means nothing, you guys somehow “know” better than me.
It’s a huge part of why no one who matters actually takes you seriously.
You are not intellectually serious people, you don’t actually care about honest and open discussion of ideas, you are far more interested in policing language than you are in constructive conversation.
It means nothing, I took poly sci too, its utter garbage.
And those people who matter are surely taking any of us working class seriously at all
We are serious, we disguise it in jokes so as to not be the “intellectual” asshole. Its very annoying to be that way.
And yet the inherent assumption remains; either people agree with you, or they don’t actually understand the concepts you are promulgating, or they are objectively evil and malintentioned.
I would argue that there is in fact a third alternative wherein people of perfectly good faith fully understand your arguments but still find them wanting or unsatisfactory on well-reasoned and logical grounds.
It’s your insistence on rejecting this third possibility that I find so objectionable and fallacious.