It’s also full of insinuation and implication and “X may mean Y [which is damning]” in a way that’s attempting to get the benefit of “X = Y” without having to actually demonstrate it.
In my opinion, “you have to use a burner account to put forth this kind of ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’ and ‘argument’” is actually a point in EA culture’s favor.
I’m not describing this post as a response to the other post.
I initially wrote at the top of this post that,
I wanted to offer a different perspective on this post …
and I believe that this warranted a separate post. In no way was this meant to be a rebuttal of all the arguments made there. I apologise for the confusion.
At the top of the post, I’ve now clarified that I’m offering a different perspective (to add to the public discourse) and that this made more sense to me as a post than a comment and NOT a rebuttal.
I’m concerned this post describes itself as a response to another post, but doesn’t actually address the arguments made in that discussion.
Instead it reads like a continuation of posts by other burner accounts.
For this reason, I downvoted.
It’s also full of insinuation and implication and “X may mean Y [which is damning]” in a way that’s attempting to get the benefit of “X = Y” without having to actually demonstrate it.
In my opinion, “you have to use a burner account to put forth this kind of ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’ and ‘argument’” is actually a point in EA culture’s favor.
I’m not describing this post as a response to the other post.
I initially wrote at the top of this post that,
and I believe that this warranted a separate post. In no way was this meant to be a rebuttal of all the arguments made there. I apologise for the confusion.
At the top of the post, I’ve now clarified that I’m offering a different perspective (to add to the public discourse) and that this made more sense to me as a post than a comment and NOT a rebuttal.