The interface design problem here is that people are trying to express two things with one button: A) I disagree strongly, and B) that is a poor contribution to the discussion.
Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured.
When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion. From his further replies, I'm sure of it. Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that. And if he's not at a discussion site to have an actual discussion, downvoting seems entirely reasonable to me.
>Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view.
Noticed how you equate the issue of sexism with evolution theory?
To imply, of course, that those that happen to disagree about the importance of sexism are NUTS, and that the importance of sexism in keeping women away from IT is as indisputable as a scientific theory.
So much for YOU coming here "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view".
So, when you say that the ideal is for one to come to a discussion "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view", you only mean it for those with opposing views.
Because YOUR view is a priori as irrefutable as evolution --your simile--.
>When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion.
Let me see.
1) I come in the discussion with an opposing view.
2) You held that I'm akin to someone coming to an evolution discussion with an opposing view --i.e a nutjob arguing against science.
3) I provide several arguments, mention some logical explanations about how things could not be so, etc.
4) Instead of replying in specifics, you resort to ad-hominens. Batista this, and Batista that.
5) Notice how all your message above is devoice of specifics, even on the meta-level of discussing my comments:
= = = = =
"Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista."
No mentioning why.
"Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured."
No mention of how that applies to Batista, plus the vulgar comparison of anyone disagreeing with the current topic to someone disagreeing with evolution/science.
"When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion."
No mention of what that technique was. Saying something besides what everybody else says?
"From his further replies, I'm sure of it."
Again, no mention of specifics.
"Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that."
Again, no specifics as to what is "that".
= = = = =
And you have the nerve to say that it's me that "I'm not interested in conversation"?
Talk about blame the victim.
You're true on one thing, though: "life's too short to waste time talking with people like that".
>I am indeed saying that you are acting like a nutjob. Well recognized. And nice work confirming that with a rambling 25-paragraph reply
Let's see: another ad-hominen insult, and still no specifics or counterarguments. Oh, and you managed to miss all of my arguments. And the problem is the length of my reply.
Yes, I can see how I am the nutjob for expressing an unpopular opinion (with arguments), and not being satisfied with just being called names for it. Nothing like the internet to give so considering, well spoken, and intellectually stimulating discussion partners such as you.
Since you took the liberty of calling me a nutjob, may I add an ad-hominen too? You are acting like an idiotic, PC, middle class American white man-boy. I'd take "nutjob" any day...
I have no obligation to respond to a raft of talking points from somebody I don't perceive as sincerely interested in having a discussion. I have better things to do.
If you'd like to know my particular positions on this issue, I've commented plenty in this and related threads. If you have some particular sincere question (that is, a non-rhetorical question) about some view I have expressed, feel free to ask.
Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured.
When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion. From his further replies, I'm sure of it. Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that. And if he's not at a discussion site to have an actual discussion, downvoting seems entirely reasonable to me.