i fully agree with everyone who is saying what you are saying here (including yourself). thank you! group A, call them. if you read those comments deeply, you will see i have responded with cheerful enthusiasm and accepted their contribution. i thank you for it here too.
other people, we’ll say group B (perhaps a smaller number but i never claimed it was 50/50) falsely just said “you are telling us not to use the word neurodivergent. stop it.”
please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(
Your argument disregarded the arguments that refuted your central point, group A, in a very cheerful manner and instead hyperfocused on arguments that were easier to disparage, group B.
My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion. Your insistence on going after group B, a more defensible position, is an attempt to continue this discussion under a veneer of good faith.
Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false. If you want to continue to have these discussions in good faith I highly recommend you engage with the implications of your argument and its position being incorrect.
please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(
I read the other post and did not engage because I saw it had reached the limits of a good faith discussion. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see a new post that attempts to continue that discussion without addressing the lessons learned or misconceptions exposed.
You’re not begging you’re threatening. I will not comply in advance. I will tell the truth and expose the truth. And, thankfully I am not the only person who will do so.
Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false.
Ah! There’s your misconception. I was not making an argument. I was comparing a series of similar events and noting how forces exist that may try to continue that pattern. Now, I think it’s fair to misconceive that once, upon first reading the post. But you read all the comments right? So you will see all the times where I say “this is descriptive, not perscriptive” or: “I am showing the forces at play so people are aware of them.” Call it “expressing a concern,” perhaps. Not telling people what to do or “making an argument.”
Hope this makes sense ❤️
Again, it’s super fair to misconceive it once, but fortunately I exist and have the capacity to clarify! So after this, you won’t have to worry about misunderstanding. Right? Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD
My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion.
It’s not even the end, fortunately! :D I am actively having these conversations still, and they are all in good faith. I’m actually having a lot of fun with the Group A whom you falsely claim I am disregarding. You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.
Your argument in the previous post was establishing a false equivalence. An attempt to show a pattern between two dissimilar things. That was the bailey.
With this post you have retreated to the motte, hyperfocusing on another group of arguments to distract from the arguments that refuted your central point.
Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post
By obfuscating your position, by pretending you were misunderstood, you were hoping to be unchallenged in a hypothetically more defensible position so you could claim victory.
You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.
As my argument has exposed this deception your argument is now relying on ad hominen attacks. Your playbook lacks the means to interact meaningfully with an argument that engages and refutes both your argument’s desired bailey, attacking the word neurotypical because it exposes privilege, and what turned out to be a not so defensible motte, misleading accusations of assumptions and new usages of the word nuance.
Group B identified your argument’s desire to undermine the validation people feel from using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s goal was to get people to stop using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s motivation for this is to undermine a mechanism that exposes the privilege that neurotypical people enjoy,
two separate discussions.
i fully agree with everyone who is saying what you are saying here (including yourself). thank you! group A, call them. if you read those comments deeply, you will see i have responded with cheerful enthusiasm and accepted their contribution. i thank you for it here too.
other people, we’ll say group B (perhaps a smaller number but i never claimed it was 50/50) falsely just said “you are telling us not to use the word neurodivergent. stop it.”
please, im begging. i don’t want to be an ass and block you but if you come into a separate thread of mine to give your reading on dozens and dozens of comments, read all of them? :(
Your argument disregarded the arguments that refuted your central point, group A, in a very cheerful manner and instead hyperfocused on arguments that were easier to disparage, group B.
My arguments focused on group A because that it is what should have been the end to a good faith discussion. Your insistence on going after group B, a more defensible position, is an attempt to continue this discussion under a veneer of good faith.
Multiple arguments have established your argument’s position to be false. If you want to continue to have these discussions in good faith I highly recommend you engage with the implications of your argument and its position being incorrect.
I read the other post and did not engage because I saw it had reached the limits of a good faith discussion. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now I see a new post that attempts to continue that discussion without addressing the lessons learned or misconceptions exposed.
You’re not begging you’re threatening. I will not comply in advance. I will tell the truth and expose the truth. And, thankfully I am not the only person who will do so.
Ah! There’s your misconception. I was not making an argument. I was comparing a series of similar events and noting how forces exist that may try to continue that pattern. Now, I think it’s fair to misconceive that once, upon first reading the post. But you read all the comments right? So you will see all the times where I say “this is descriptive, not perscriptive” or: “I am showing the forces at play so people are aware of them.” Call it “expressing a concern,” perhaps. Not telling people what to do or “making an argument.”
Hope this makes sense ❤️
Again, it’s super fair to misconceive it once, but fortunately I exist and have the capacity to clarify! So after this, you won’t have to worry about misunderstanding. Right? Because if not you are literally the “so you hate waffles” guy in the post and that’s super embarrassing for you. XD
It’s not even the end, fortunately! :D I am actively having these conversations still, and they are all in good faith. I’m actually having a lot of fun with the Group A whom you falsely claim I am disregarding. You conveniently ignore this in order to get some seratonin from writing me paragraphs about “exposing truth”??!!, and that’s super sad. 😔 You could be having fun interesting discussions along the same lines if you hadn’t made it weird. Sorry, man.
Your argument in the previous post was establishing a false equivalence. An attempt to show a pattern between two dissimilar things. That was the bailey.
With this post you have retreated to the motte, hyperfocusing on another group of arguments to distract from the arguments that refuted your central point.
By obfuscating your position, by pretending you were misunderstood, you were hoping to be unchallenged in a hypothetically more defensible position so you could claim victory.
As my argument has exposed this deception your argument is now relying on ad hominen attacks. Your playbook lacks the means to interact meaningfully with an argument that engages and refutes both your argument’s desired bailey, attacking the word neurotypical because it exposes privilege, and what turned out to be a not so defensible motte, misleading accusations of assumptions and new usages of the word nuance.
Group B identified your argument’s desire to undermine the validation people feel from using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s goal was to get people to stop using the word neurodivergent. Your argument’s motivation for this is to undermine a mechanism that exposes the privilege that neurotypical people enjoy,
Your declaration of victory has defeated you.
LMAO
have a good one mate