Mark does a great job here by first making a connection to any disagreement with him being because of .... racism.... wow.
Then the meat:
Now that we have comments cleaned up and monitored more closely, I encourage you to leave feedback and start some conversations. Registration is no longer required and you can post under any name you like..even anonymous. The comments will be moderated and checked for personal remarks to posters/commenters and spam so you will not be attacked by other commenters. The issues themselves will be the foundation of the discussion.
What Mark isn't understanding is that without being able to talk about the discussion then there, by definition, cannot be any discussion.
Example:
Mark: 'Your assessment is incorrect because of purple dinosaurs' (Mark feels this is not a personal attack because he is 'talking about the issue itself)
Commenter: 'Purple dinosaurs makes no sense' (Mark deletes the comment because it is an 'attack' upon the commenter and an argument about the argument)
It's not hard to envision this in just about any reasonable conversation. It's even easier to envision it when in a conversation with a person whose worldview is wildly different from your own. It's just about guaranteed to be able to envision it when trying to have a discussion with Marxy.
As I said before - Mark isn't setting up a system where people can discuss issues in order to find the truth or even to find a middle ground or understanding. He has set up a system where the truth is what he says it is and pointing out otherwise is a violation of his 'rules'.
Mark does a great job here by first making a connection to any disagreement with him being because of .... racism.... wow.
ReplyDeleteThen the meat:
Now that we have comments cleaned up and monitored more closely, I encourage you to leave feedback and start some conversations. Registration is no longer required and you can post under any name you like..even anonymous. The comments will be moderated and checked for personal remarks to posters/commenters and spam so you will not be attacked by other commenters. The issues themselves will be the foundation of the discussion.
What Mark isn't understanding is that without being able to talk about the discussion then there, by definition, cannot be any discussion.
Example:
Mark: 'Your assessment is incorrect because of purple dinosaurs' (Mark feels this is not a personal attack because he is 'talking about the issue itself)
Commenter: 'Purple dinosaurs makes no sense' (Mark deletes the comment because it is an 'attack' upon the commenter and an argument about the argument)
It's not hard to envision this in just about any reasonable conversation. It's even easier to envision it when in a conversation with a person whose worldview is wildly different from your own. It's just about guaranteed to be able to envision it when trying to have a discussion with Marxy.
As I said before - Mark isn't setting up a system where people can discuss issues in order to find the truth or even to find a middle ground or understanding. He has set up a system where the truth is what he says it is and pointing out otherwise is a violation of his 'rules'.