Comment by calf
5 hours ago
I hate ad hominems leveled (especially against me), but the information about the Economist and this author is relevant. It suggests bad faith (to readers who have noticed a pattern by those sources). Which is not necessarily an ad hominem. Specifically it turns out I already read a problematic piece by this author last year, so the heads up saves me time, attention, and energy.
>The Economist pontificating about morality is like a vampire complaining blood tastes funny
This statement is no where close to a statement that matches your concerns. It implies “we all know the Economist is an inherently unserious rag… which it is obviously not.
The statement, written by someone else, matches what I happen to generally believe about the Economist.
Do not presume to understand other people's concerns based on one or two sentences. I don't know how to explain that in an online conversation, this is more a learn to interact with real life people kind of thing. I would assume older generations still behave that way, because they are more authoritarian.
I could talk about why the 'implication' is not necessarily problem and about why what is 'obvious' to yourself should not be taken for granted when talking through disagreements with other people. But that would take more time and I think a well-rounded college education is supposed teach people these basic humanities skills, not something that can be sorted out online especially these days.
>Do not presume to understand other people's concerns based on one or two sentences.
Expecting to be taken seriously in a good-faith conversation while walking in throwing entirely unargued bombs like this is asinine. The idea that you should be able to skip the "arguing" part of an intellectual discussion because "I mean come on..." is the sentiment you hold is sophomoric bullshit.