pull down to refresh
12 sats \ 5 replies \ @398ja 14 Nov \ on: I finally muted someone on SN: how to achieve this dubious honor meta
There is so much to learn from disagreements, but too often we blow it by resorting to name calling etc. Muting the offender is indeed justified in this case.
I appreciate it.
Ironically, it was on a post about the difficulty of finding people to have intelligent disagreements with.
The rest of the comments were full of intelligent disagreements.
reply
Have you looked at the actual exchange or only relied upon the OPs version of it.
If you follow the actual exchange who was doing the name calling?
The OP responded to my comment on his post. I never forced him to do anything.
He claimed and still claims-
'We had gone through the same tedious argument several times and the person never engaged with my points, but just kept repeating their assertions'
His actual comment- 'I've told you before why I don't think your arguments are any good.'
The problem is the OP has not backed up this claim with any evidence - instead demanding I go and check past comments to verify what he has claimed. I do not know how I could do that and am pretty sure he knows that it would be a massive task to go through thousands of past comments to find what he claims has occurred.
Remember this is in the context of the OPs post about Libertarians asking for more engagement by those who no agree with them!
reply
reply
398ja
Your comment -
'There is so much to learn from disagreements, but too often we blow it by resorting to name calling etc. Muting the offender is indeed justified in this case.'
I did not call the OP names in the exchange - he dishonestly claims I did.
I do not object to being muted - I do object to being falsely accused of name calling.