• gila@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I feel like you’re demanding the take part of the give-and-take flow of constructive argumentation upfront. This serves mostly to misdirect from the issue rather event attempt to tackle it, and that’s why it’s not compelling to me

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s fair.

      IMO online comments are an extremely poor medium for ambiguous comments because:

      1. There’s very little context provided.
      2. “Conversations” typically are composed of, at most, 3-4 messages from each party.
      3. It takes a while for each party to type up their response.

      Due to these reasons, ambiguities should at least attempt to be cleared up with up front.

      Sure you don’t have to do that, but then you just get misunderstood, wasting everyone’s time.

      What you’re suggesting applies far more easily in an IRL conversation. I can look for body language, like a smile indicating joking. Conversations take seconds instead of minutes, and there’s far more back and forth

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Agree again. In this instance the commenter was pretty clearly pro-abortion though. I think in terms of speculating on their potential position with limited info, that’s also a vector where you could have at least a reasonable degree of certainty about which quadrant of the political compass they fall in.