Did you take Logic 101 at Trump U?
Agile logic.
Then you should probably STFU about it.
You definitely should have taken the horse.
But in the way that you chose to try to rebut it, you implied that you had read it, with you specifically saying that actions mentioned were firing offenses, without actually knowing what those actions were.
That’s the whole point. You reacted to something without knowing what it was that you were reacting to, just going by the headline and assuming you knew what followed.
And then, instead of saying, “You are right, I just reacted to the headline.” You are here, doubling and tripling down against the slightest possibility that you admit to having made a mistake.
You are probably right. This is us, actually trying to help you, pointing out a pattern that we see in your behavior that is what gets you into trouble.
But, sadly, I doubt you will change a thing.
And yet you rebutted it anyway. That’s kind of the point. You treated something that was satire as if it were something real that needed rebuttal. You rode into to defend Musk’s behavior for something that wasn’t even Musk’s behavior (as it was a satirical article). And you do this while claiming you are not a Musk fanboy. So yes, we’re poking fun at you for white knighting a satire piece. Just like my friends do to me when I’m fooled (albeit rarely) by a source of satire. It happens. It isn’t that big a deal. But you are making it a bigger deal by trying to explain and rationalize it, instead of just owning it. And that in and of itself wouldn’t be such a big deal if you didn’t have such a long history of this very behavior.
I make mistakes here and elsewhere. Has anybody started a thread on BeepKillBeep’s behavior on making mistakes? No. Why not? I make them. Maybe it is because when I make a mistake, I correct the mistake, thank the person for pointing out the error, and I don’t repeat the mistake. Maybe you should consider changing the way you do things? I started this very thread because of your consistent pattern of making error after error after error, citing terrible information sources, citing information you clearly have not read (granted I didn’t explicitly start the thread because of the last two but those patterns existed prior and has been talked about here). Is there a point where you ask yourself “Maybe I am the problem? Maybe my information sources are the problem?” It seems like no, and I just cannot understand that. I’m try to always be skeptical or aware of my own rationalizations, biases, and information sources. You should try it, instead of just saying that you do it.
Do you genuinely not see how this is a recurring problem for you–that you treat cites as ornamental and you treat reading them as optional? Over and over you make this error and get called on it; and instead of changing your behavior, you get a snippy martyr complex.
Lol, nothing I like more than ideological math in the pursuit of economic alchemy!
(This is a joke. I, of course, have no ideologies. Unlike the rest of you.)
I’ve been traveling and I’m catching up on threads I missed out on, and I see this nonsense:
This is the first response and immediately derails the thread. Sam, I know you read this… do you have any self-awareness? Do you think this sort of thing makes you a quality poster?
“I didn’t read the article you wanted to discuss but I’m going to fart my opinion at you anyway.”
Pffft, Sam doesn’t need facts to know the truth.
Nor does he need truth in order to tell him what the facts are.
If someone posts a link with a paywall that prevents non-subscribers from accessing it, does that mean the topic is off limits to discussion by them?
Seems to me that while Sam’s comments are fair game for criticism, the fact that he’s expressing them shouldn’t be.
I think it’s on the person posting the paywalled link to summarize.
If I couldn’t read a link, I wouldn’t comment on my strawman of what the link may say, based my political axes that I grind. I would say, “can you please summarize what it’s saying?” rather than (as a good liberal/communist) “self-reliance is the devil! We all must suck at the government teat all the time!”
He’s dismissing the “concept” of overemphasizing self-reliance. This is like dismissing the “concept” of racism based on your made up definition of racism.
Also, would like to note that the paywall led to “The Atlantic”. They do have a cookied gift article limit of 1 or 2 free articles per month, which is tracked, so that when you exceed that limit, the paywall kicks in.
What Ritter said.
It may be on the OP for starting a bad thread with a link that’s difficult to read and no summary, but nobody’s forcing anyone to respond.
This is a good question.
I don’t think so, but I do think that, perhaps, one should wait to post (as to respond to someone, perhaps) rather than by being voice #2 and ignoring the only post in the new thread.
If Sam’s response was reply #20, no big deal. But it was in response to the OP, as (at that time) the sole response to the OP, and he started by admitting he didn’t even read the OP’s citations.
So:
"No. Not being able to access a paywall should not prohibit one from participating in a discussion.
However, one should not immediately respond to an OP by openly admitting you’re ‘ignoring the citations but I’m going to respond anyway’."
They don’t seem to now. I used to click on the occasional Atlantic link and get the “this is your last free article” message, or “you’ve used up your free articles” box. Now it just insists you subscribe. They changed something.
Huh. That was the message I received when I read that article.
If I find an article with a paywall, I do a Google search for the article title and nine times out of ten I will find a free version of it from Yahoo or some other place. They’ll say “originally posted on the Atlantic” or whatever. And if/when I find it, I’ll put a link in the thread for others.
If that doesn’t work, I’ll ask the person for a summary or something.