So here is the dilemma I run into. Communication is error prone, but also the truth matters. So, when someone publicly posts something that I think is incorrect (maybe I am wrong maybe not), it can have a wide effect on a lot of people. So when I engage, I have to make a judgment call on whether or not a person is being genuine. If I respond a couple of times and the other person is not acknowledging my arguments or providing counter points. It could be many things:
My argument is bad
My argument is unrelated or off topic.
I am wrong.
I misunderstood or vice-versa.
… (There is probably a million things here)
It could be I have caused a stubborn and/or emotional reaction causing them to not back down.
or it could be the person I am arguing with has bad intentions. They are willfully spreading misinformation.
Now I have to pick one and go for it because while the possible misinformation is being unchallenged it is spreading to people who are tying to figure stuff out. Note that it doesn’t matter what your intentions are, the damage done is the same for intentional or unintentional misinformation. So if I think it is you and not me and I think I am right, I need to be on the offence. I need you to counterpoint to a specific argument I made or I need to make you look stupid to either get you to counterpoint or prove to the average reader that if you had a counterpoint you would have used it instead of taking my shit.
This is why I started to insult you. I am sorry if it caused damage. My intent is not to cause damage unless the misinformation was intentional. I don’t know of course, but I don’t think you had any ill intent.
Your right, I don’t think your special, that was less of a lie and more of an insult. I don’t hate you, I think you are ok (witch is a better opinion that you have of your self), and I think you can get better. All this stuff is learned and is learnable.
Edit:
About the library ownership thing. I ignored it because I think my point is valid regardless of who owns the library. My issue was not with what the library did, my issue was in the framing of why the library did it. A framing you brought up.
Valid points, all of them.
So here is the dilemma I run into. Communication is error prone, but also the truth matters. So, when someone publicly posts something that I think is incorrect (maybe I am wrong maybe not), it can have a wide effect on a lot of people. So when I engage, I have to make a judgment call on whether or not a person is being genuine. If I respond a couple of times and the other person is not acknowledging my arguments or providing counter points. It could be many things:
Now I have to pick one and go for it because while the possible misinformation is being unchallenged it is spreading to people who are tying to figure stuff out. Note that it doesn’t matter what your intentions are, the damage done is the same for intentional or unintentional misinformation. So if I think it is you and not me and I think I am right, I need to be on the offence. I need you to counterpoint to a specific argument I made or I need to make you look stupid to either get you to counterpoint or prove to the average reader that if you had a counterpoint you would have used it instead of taking my shit.
This is why I started to insult you. I am sorry if it caused damage. My intent is not to cause damage unless the misinformation was intentional. I don’t know of course, but I don’t think you had any ill intent.
Your right, I don’t think your special, that was less of a lie and more of an insult. I don’t hate you, I think you are ok (witch is a better opinion that you have of your self), and I think you can get better. All this stuff is learned and is learnable.
Edit:
About the library ownership thing. I ignored it because I think my point is valid regardless of who owns the library. My issue was not with what the library did, my issue was in the framing of why the library did it. A framing you brought up.