I’m not sure what is achieved by the tone of this piece. It’s bordering on uncivil.
Especially since, as others comments have pointed out, you make more of your objections than is really warranted. There are some excellent points in there, but also some points where you needlessly exaggerated the difference between your beliefs.
Aren’t we supposed to be learning together? Why the adversarial approach?
Can someone tell me why they downvoted this comment? Do you disagree with the observation that the tone is adversarial, just generally dislike tone policing or something else entirely?
(For the record I strong upvoted both the post and this comment.)
I didn’t downvote it, but I do disagree with the claim that the tone is particularly adversarial. I read the post as mostly just citing SMTM’s claims and then laying out the evidence that disagrees with those claims. I think it does a good job of just sticking to the facts of the disagreement rather than getting personal or rude.
I didn’t downvote, but I think the comment would have benefitted from specific commentary about which parts were uncivil. There’s a lot of stuff in the post, and most of it has pretty neutral language.
I’m not sure what is achieved by the tone of this piece. It’s bordering on uncivil.
Especially since, as others comments have pointed out, you make more of your objections than is really warranted. There are some excellent points in there, but also some points where you needlessly exaggerated the difference between your beliefs.
Aren’t we supposed to be learning together? Why the adversarial approach?
Can someone tell me why they downvoted this comment? Do you disagree with the observation that the tone is adversarial, just generally dislike tone policing or something else entirely?
(For the record I strong upvoted both the post and this comment.)
I didn’t downvote it, but I do disagree with the claim that the tone is particularly adversarial. I read the post as mostly just citing SMTM’s claims and then laying out the evidence that disagrees with those claims. I think it does a good job of just sticking to the facts of the disagreement rather than getting personal or rude.
Thank you!
I didn’t downvote, but I think the comment would have benefitted from specific commentary about which parts were uncivil. There’s a lot of stuff in the post, and most of it has pretty neutral language.