One that I didn’t want to include in the post because I felt it would make it too inflammatory is this reaction to a particular conspiracy theory.
I assumed you had that exchange in mind. And it makes sense to avoid the inflammatory issue. But “someone would have noticed” was not what I was saying and that makes me wonder how often people actually do say “someone would have noticed”.
I wondered if that was the exchange she had in mind as well. I think the tactic of avoiding the specific issue is harmful to the point because as I was reading it I was thinking “is this is a prelude to trying to convince me of something which someone would have noticed is the natural reaction to, and if so why is the ground being laid so carefully?”. Reading this post makes me feel like I am being set up for some kind of sleight of hand argumentative trickery—my spider sense was tingling.
I did have the exchange in mind; I’m not trying to argue for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don’t even believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I just think this sort of reaction to that among other conspiracy theories is a risky heuristic to employ.
I wondered if that was the exchange you were referring to and decided that you probably weren’t intending to argue for a 9/11 conspiracy theory so I started wondering what future post you were ‘softening us up’ for. That’s why I think the lack of specifics detracts from the post. I was so busy wondering what you were planning to try and persuade us of that it distracted from the explicit message of the post.
I’m not softening you up for anything. I don’t believe in anything that I’d expect people to react to in this way. It bothers me when folks do it to others. Do you think I should add this disclaimer to the post? Would it help?
It would probably have meant I was less distracted wondering what specific theory this post was laying the groundwork for, yes. I actually thought this was groundwork for something relating to SIAI—I’m not so sure you (or anyone here really) don’t believe certain things in this class of idea.
Isn’t it sad that you had to add this disclaimer? I’m not arguing you shouldn’t have done it, unfortunately I tend to agree that it was the right thing to do.
But, shouldn’t the post be judged on its own merit? Would it be looked at with different eyes if you wrote the disclaimer “I believe in conspiracy theories and I’m softening you up now.”
I assumed you had that exchange in mind. And it makes sense to avoid the inflammatory issue. But “someone would have noticed” was not what I was saying and that makes me wonder how often people actually do say “someone would have noticed”.
I wondered if that was the exchange she had in mind as well. I think the tactic of avoiding the specific issue is harmful to the point because as I was reading it I was thinking “is this is a prelude to trying to convince me of something which someone would have noticed is the natural reaction to, and if so why is the ground being laid so carefully?”. Reading this post makes me feel like I am being set up for some kind of sleight of hand argumentative trickery—my spider sense was tingling.
I did have the exchange in mind; I’m not trying to argue for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don’t even believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I just think this sort of reaction to that among other conspiracy theories is a risky heuristic to employ.
I wondered if that was the exchange you were referring to and decided that you probably weren’t intending to argue for a 9/11 conspiracy theory so I started wondering what future post you were ‘softening us up’ for. That’s why I think the lack of specifics detracts from the post. I was so busy wondering what you were planning to try and persuade us of that it distracted from the explicit message of the post.
I’m not softening you up for anything. I don’t believe in anything that I’d expect people to react to in this way. It bothers me when folks do it to others. Do you think I should add this disclaimer to the post? Would it help?
I’m not sure a disclaimer would be rhetorically convincing—it reads to me like your article is building towards a conclusion that never arrives.
It would probably have meant I was less distracted wondering what specific theory this post was laying the groundwork for, yes. I actually thought this was groundwork for something relating to SIAI—I’m not so sure you (or anyone here really) don’t believe certain things in this class of idea.
Added the disclaimer.
Isn’t it sad that you had to add this disclaimer? I’m not arguing you shouldn’t have done it, unfortunately I tend to agree that it was the right thing to do.
But, shouldn’t the post be judged on its own merit? Would it be looked at with different eyes if you wrote the disclaimer “I believe in conspiracy theories and I’m softening you up now.”