Note: If you want to respond to this post with an object-level comment about immigration, you have to preface it with, “I didn’t read or understand this post, but:”
I would link Politics is the Mind-Killer but you already did… and that post specifically points out that using a political example is often an attempt by the writer to get a dig at their political enemies just because they can.
This behavior is disruptive, and to discourage it, we should consider it acceptable to rebut political statements made in posts. Furthermore, since it is difficult to make a rule which allows only disruptive political asides to be rebutted, we should instead let all political asides be rebutted. If you are using one for a legitimate reason and people start rebutting it, them’s the breaks.
Do you think I’m getting a dig at my political enemies just because I can? I mean, I’m fairly open about being pro-immigration… but this is a story where the two characters repeat actual arguments I’ve watched happen on Discord, neither character ‘wins’ the argument, the essay takes no stance on whether Charlie or Bob gets vindicated other than to say that they’re both worse off than if they had talked about something more productive, and my actual point has nothing to do with immigration.
I believe I possess adequate skill to say “this is a disruptive political jab” when an essay author makes disruptive political jabs, and to instead engage with the author’s actual point when the author is making an actual unrelated point using a helpful political example. If you don’t, then… skill issue? That’s no reason to inflict such a counterproductive rule on the rest of us.
Do you think I’m getting a dig at my political enemies just because I can?
...
Furthermore, since it is difficult to make a rule which allows only disruptive political asides to be rebutted, we should instead let all political asides be rebutted.
Saying “you can respond to political jabs, but only jabs” is unworkable.
I would link Politics is the Mind-Killer but you already did… and that post specifically points out that using a political example is often an attempt by the writer to get a dig at their political enemies just because they can.
This behavior is disruptive, and to discourage it, we should consider it acceptable to rebut political statements made in posts. Furthermore, since it is difficult to make a rule which allows only disruptive political asides to be rebutted, we should instead let all political asides be rebutted. If you are using one for a legitimate reason and people start rebutting it, them’s the breaks.
Do you think I’m getting a dig at my political enemies just because I can? I mean, I’m fairly open about being pro-immigration… but this is a story where the two characters repeat actual arguments I’ve watched happen on Discord, neither character ‘wins’ the argument, the essay takes no stance on whether Charlie or Bob gets vindicated other than to say that they’re both worse off than if they had talked about something more productive, and my actual point has nothing to do with immigration.
I believe I possess adequate skill to say “this is a disruptive political jab” when an essay author makes disruptive political jabs, and to instead engage with the author’s actual point when the author is making an actual unrelated point using a helpful political example. If you don’t, then… skill issue? That’s no reason to inflict such a counterproductive rule on the rest of us.
...
Saying “you can respond to political jabs, but only jabs” is unworkable.