Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
It's not condescension though. A fundamental question to any discussion is what kind of reply you accept as valid. Are there any, or will the same dismissal result no matter what? I, multiple times in this discussion, have given examples of what I would consider valid rebuttals to what I've said. It's hardly condescension to insist on reasonable terms of debate.
...
Again, there are many valid points made in the article. But a valid point robbed of appropriate context doesn't get very far. When you look at the whole picture, it's clear the goal in this kind of piece isn't to take in all of factors involved and come out with a logical conclusion. It's what an exercise in bolstering a pre-determined conclusion looks like.
|
By engaging in the discussion I left it open to you how to respond and obviously expect the same. You often say a response isn't "serious", but it's usually an attempt to figure out what piece of this massive debate we're talking about. The alternative is a one-line quip intended to signal that one doesn't agree with something. I hope I never start doing that in any context.
Obviously, we're not talking about Twitter and Musk directly here. The Twitter Files show how Twitter and presumably other tech companies have worked with the government and establishment media to mute inconvenient debate.
The other half of that discussion involves Musk's own petty fights with establishment media - that half has received all the attention here, probably because Musk looks rather ridiculous. And that part isn't really going to get much debate. Where does the first half lead us? Some interesting areas - offshoots of Musk's massive wealth from government subsidies of Tesla. The actual Twitter censorship issue from pre-Musk. Is it worth doing this over Twitter in the first place because Twitter represents the absolute quippiest and most useless speech (though apparently many people get their news from Twitter, so maybe it is worth doing).
Point being, neither one of us can "win" this argument. The politically-inclined participants who have remained on FOFC can vote, and I'll obviously lose. I knew that going in. We can back-and-forth over pieces of various documents, and it will come down to dismissing one source over another source. And for reasons having more to do with whether we think climate change is a crisis and how much of it is natural and how much is caused by fossil fuel burning.
At any rate, I will conclude with this as well. I don't want to upset people.