I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, the executive branch wants chaos. If we can't agree on that (something both sides of the lane agree on, even of the reaction differs) how can we really dig into solutions?
The guidelines read clearly to me like tone policing is expected:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Yes, this is exactly what my framing was doing - it is more substantive, positing a starting point for people who earnestly want to solve this problem. How the heck do we save, or at least triage, our country when we've got a hostile federal executive trying to start a civil war (among many other types of overt damage) ?
This conversation is open to people of all political persuasions except Trumpists/fascists (or whatever you want to call yourself). I myself am coming from more of a libertarian / Austrian economics background. I can have some wildly different takes on constructive solutions than someone who is a lifelong Democrat, or a conservative who has been pushed out of the Republican party.
The thing you seem to keep missing is that you were not invited to this conversation - or more accurately you've self-selected out. You could choose to join the conversation at any time, but to do this you need to stop throwing out these disruptive upside-down framings that are basically just promulgating the rogue regime's unapologetic litany of bullshit that's trotted out every time they kill another American.
[flagged]
I thought we hated tone policing here?
I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, the executive branch wants chaos. If we can't agree on that (something both sides of the lane agree on, even of the reaction differs) how can we really dig into solutions?
> I thought we hated tone policing here?
The guidelines read clearly to me like tone policing is expected:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You forgot the ones happened to be the reason I responded:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
3 replies →
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Yes, this is exactly what my framing was doing - it is more substantive, positing a starting point for people who earnestly want to solve this problem. How the heck do we save, or at least triage, our country when we've got a hostile federal executive trying to start a civil war (among many other types of overt damage) ?
This conversation is open to people of all political persuasions except Trumpists/fascists (or whatever you want to call yourself). I myself am coming from more of a libertarian / Austrian economics background. I can have some wildly different takes on constructive solutions than someone who is a lifelong Democrat, or a conservative who has been pushed out of the Republican party.
The thing you seem to keep missing is that you were not invited to this conversation - or more accurately you've self-selected out. You could choose to join the conversation at any time, but to do this you need to stop throwing out these disruptive upside-down framings that are basically just promulgating the rogue regime's unapologetic litany of bullshit that's trotted out every time they kill another American.
2 replies →