The point is better (and stands on its own) without treading into personal attacks. Don't let a throwaway account bait you into turning it into a battle of name calling instead of sticking to readily available facts as you link at the end, it's what they often want and if they were sincere it severely diminishes the chances they'll believe your links were in good faith anyways.
Facts matter, as does telling people it is on them to understand them. Otherwise, we will spin in perpetuity refuting people who are not discussing in good faith. I stand by my assertions. I do not believe it is impolite to call out a potential lack of education, or ignoring of facts and reality. Without shared facts and reality, discussion and debate is impossible.
This is every part I agree with, with none of falling for the trap of looking bad for doing so. They've already edited the comment and posted a new one. Now the insults stand rather than just what you've said here, which was perfectly even keeled and factual.
If you're going to put the energy into refuting something, why bother wasting it by using personal insults to kick it off instead? Uneducated is at least borderline, if a bit blunt, but unsophisticated just drains any value.
I appreciate you deeply for standing up to it, I just don't want to see doing so made to look bad when the facts presented were so solid and good.
I don’t believe asserting that someone is uneducated or unsophisticated is an insult (if true); it is simply a fact and description, and stands regardless of the content of the post. Where you see malice, I see honesty and truth. “If this, then that.”
There are educated people, uneducated people, sophisticated people, and unsophisticated people (and overlap amongst). You will need to tailor your approach accordingly when dealing with each persona.
Hmm, I suppose people can see words in very different ways. If you're mother asked why the printer never works for her would you tell her she's uneducated and unsophisticated for not knowing before sending a link to the manual? It sounds like perhaps you would, but I wonder how many would really agree that's a neutrally worded approach.
Not for me to decide alone any more than anyone else alone I suppose. Thanks for sharing your perspective on it.
Yes, and she would understand why, but that is certainly different than a throwaway account making antagonistic, inflammatory political statements without citations and ignoring facts, no? Context, intent, and nuance, like facts, matter (imho).
It seems likely she would, and we are often similar to our kin I guess, but I still wonder if that's what the average person would consider neutral. I have no good way to answer that absolutely more than the next person though.
I tend to think that's because it doesn't matter who it is, it's always most productive to reply in a way which focuses on substance alone when one can't otherwise be positive. Particularly in pure text, it's so easy for things to come off worse than intended (something which has hit me quite well in the past as much as any). I've always assumed that's why the comment guidelines are so universally worded, mentioning what throwaways should be used for but with no mention of how they should be exempted from the usual approach. I.e. it's very easy for two people to feel like they are being neutral in text as the conversation escalates.
I've got to hop off for to get ready for work tomorrow. Thanks again for both taking the time to share your perspective as well as taking the time to respond to mal-intended throwaways with solid facts - it matters (thumbs up).
