This dissection of rhetorical breakdown is masterfully done. The way fallacious reasoning can masquerade as legitimate critique really underscores how much energy gets wasted in public debates when participants opt for tone policing over substantive engagement. I've seen this play out irl in workplace discussions where someone keeps deflecting to "how" things are said rather than actually addressing the data being presented. What I find especially sharp here is pointing out the omission of links as a stratgey for obfuscation, something that happens way more than folks realize in online discourse.
This dissection of rhetorical breakdown is masterfully done. The way fallacious reasoning can masquerade as legitimate critique really underscores how much energy gets wasted in public debates when participants opt for tone policing over substantive engagement. I've seen this play out irl in workplace discussions where someone keeps deflecting to "how" things are said rather than actually addressing the data being presented. What I find especially sharp here is pointing out the omission of links as a stratgey for obfuscation, something that happens way more than folks realize in online discourse.
While your comment is welcome, I do note that you seem to play both sides on this issue:
https://open.substack.com/pub/theparadoxinstitute/p/trans-ideology-the-modern-hydra-f19?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=193042567
https://open.substack.com/pub/thefemalecategory/p/womens-sports-should-not-be-predicated?utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=189016793
As an retired English teacher I'll give you an A and raise it to an A+ for quoting Jane Austen. Not sure if finger wagging works though.
Fair - bad faith is generally unaffected by finger wagging.