They’re not. You’re choosing maximally loaded phrasing at all points and then acting like you’ve been wronged when your posts are read into with the tone with which you decided to write them. If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
Like, we've had this discussion before. You don't get to write like a jerk and then take umbrage when people react to you like you're a jerk. You get out what you put in.
> If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
I am interested in discussion that does not add to what I've said based on other kinds of people that may have beliefs similar to me. That is surely not too much to ask for. What maximally loaded phrasing have I used in this discussion? Certainly suggesting the native americans get countries shouldn't be met with accusations of not wanting to provide them whatever compensation should be deemed necessary by treaty. The two issues (sovereignty and aid) are not necessarily related, as has been suggested.
I'm honestly quite curious, because I often do use loaded phrasing, but in this instance, I don't really see what is loaded. Perhaps something is loaded for you that is not loaded for me?
Man, I’m not going to play this game. This is /r/iamverysmart “ah, but you assumed” stuff, and I feel like you are easily smart enough to know that.
Perhaps, if you don’t want people to assume that you are advocating dumping people in the middle of nowhere without the protections of U.S. citizenship, you should not write in such a thuddingly absolutist manner that makes that assumption the apparently-obvious one, because there are plenty of internet edgelords who try to troll with exactly the half-a-position you led with--but hold only that half a position, ‘cause they’re as a general population racist pricks. I get that it requires some exercised empathy to critically read one's own stuff with an outsider lens, but if that's not something you can easily do you can also default to indicating that you have thought this through at more than the prima facie level that a normal-person reader would infer, to explicitly saying more than the barest minimum that invites misapprehension.
What I’m saying is that if you want to be afforded good faith, it helps to act like you deserve it and are giving it to others. But you write like you’re comfortable being perceived as a jerk, and that comes with some downsides, yeah? If you’d like to not be perceived as such, there are ways to work on more empathetic communication. Maybe try some?
Your argument is that, because some people you've talked to only say things without believing in them to troll, i must be trolling too. I mean okay. I still don't want words put in my mouth and that is a very reasonable thing to ask in a discussion.
I write my opinion forcefully because my opinion is absolute. This is a good thing that more people ought to work on. We should all know what the other thinks and we shouldn't feel the need to hide behind ambiguity to make ourselves more popular
But if you cant have a discussion without ad hominems, then i think im done here. Have a great day!
They’re not. You’re choosing maximally loaded phrasing at all points and then acting like you’ve been wronged when your posts are read into with the tone with which you decided to write them. If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
Like, we've had this discussion before. You don't get to write like a jerk and then take umbrage when people react to you like you're a jerk. You get out what you put in.