It is bad faith for you to assert pejorative dismissals of someone else’s behavior that you are unwilling to engage or defend meaningfully.
If you decline to continue a discussion, then you should provide as the reason simply that you have made such as choice, not by asserting a problem with someone else.
All you have said so far is “I’m right because I’m right because I’m right. La la la la la. I’m not listening.”
the person you replied to defines a “group” as members of a social grouping; they were talking about rich people as a “group”.
you were talking about power being held by an unspecified, arbitrary “group” of no particular social membership; i.e.
to you, a democracy is a power structure that is “controlled” by a “group”.
to the person you replied to, the U.S. government is a power structure controlled by a specific “group”.
when they say “a minority group”, they are talking about rich people being a small percentage of the population, and thus a minority, which is making laws benefiting mostly themselves.
when you talk about “a group holding power over others” you are talking about an abstract, arbitrary, and undefined collection of people.
to you, a coalition of far-right fascists and far-left anarchists forming a joint government would be a single “group”.
to the person you replied to, that would be 2 distinct groups holding a portion of power.
you were talking past each other on different levels of abstraction.
which is why it’s no wonder you accuse each other of being disingenuous… because both of you didn’t engage in the same conversation…
at least that’s the impression i got, maybe i interpreted something wrong too… short text, like a forum comment, really isn’t well suited to philosophical discussions: way too much room for interpretation…
The problem was not that we understood terms differently.
We may have done, and it may have produced obstacles to communication.
However, the problem with the conversation is that the other participant made hasty assumptions, and was predisposed to attack, rather than being reserved in judgment and willing to discuss, including, ironically, to attack me on the assumption of discussing in bad faith.
Such kinds of smug dismissals contribute to toxicity in communities. They obstruct both explaining and learning.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Expecting me to keep engaging after saying I don’t want to just because you’re demanding it? Yes, that IS ridiculous.
The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control. Please stop.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is bad faith for you to assert pejorative dismissals of someone else’s behavior that you are unwilling to engage or defend meaningfully.
If you decline to continue a discussion, then you should provide as the reason simply that you have made such as choice, not by asserting a problem with someone else.
All you have said so far is “I’m right because I’m right because I’m right. La la la la la. I’m not listening.”
Talk about bad faith.
9bananas@lemmy.world 1 year ago
i think, i found the issue in your exchange:
it’s the way the two of you define “groups”.
the person you replied to defines a “group” as members of a social grouping; they were talking about rich people as a “group”.
you were talking about power being held by an unspecified, arbitrary “group” of no particular social membership; i.e.
to you, a democracy is a power structure that is “controlled” by a “group”.
to the person you replied to, the U.S. government is a power structure controlled by a specific “group”.
when they say “a minority group”, they are talking about rich people being a small percentage of the population, and thus a minority, which is making laws benefiting mostly themselves.
when you talk about “a group holding power over others” you are talking about an abstract, arbitrary, and undefined collection of people.
to you, a coalition of far-right fascists and far-left anarchists forming a joint government would be a single “group”.
to the person you replied to, that would be 2 distinct groups holding a portion of power.
you were talking past each other on different levels of abstraction.
which is why it’s no wonder you accuse each other of being disingenuous… because both of you didn’t engage in the same conversation…
at least that’s the impression i got, maybe i interpreted something wrong too… short text, like a forum comment, really isn’t well suited to philosophical discussions: way too much room for interpretation…
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The problem was not that we understood terms differently.
We may have done, and it may have produced obstacles to communication.
However, the problem with the conversation is that the other participant made hasty assumptions, and was predisposed to attack, rather than being reserved in judgment and willing to discuss, including, ironically, to attack me on the assumption of discussing in bad faith.
Such kinds of smug dismissals contribute to toxicity in communities. They obstruct both explaining and learning.