(rant) Exhausting brain fog replies

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I am going to push back on the whole "brain-fog" descriptor.

One of the more common forms of insulting posts is, "If you don't agree with me, you have some form of cognitive impairment." And... that's kind of what you seem to be saying here.

Push back for what purpose?
I am getting frustrated/concerned with what feels like replies written from brain-fogged individuals. (A "feels like" statement separates what I identify as an emotional response from what would be a factual event)
-Almost verbatim repetition of canned, generally accepted online viewpoints. ( I could agree with the viewpoint, but that is not what I am getting at.)
-No sharing of personal experience. ( I often disagree with what people learn from experience.)
-No consideration of implications. (I am not implying I have a superior grasp of implications to anyone.)
-Low to no consideration of the original post in the thread. (This is not an agree or disagree statement; it's about the lack of context of the response.)
-Low to no consideration of previously written posts from the same thread. (This is also not an agree or disagree statement; it's about the lack of context of the response.)

 

[Umbran]

Push back for what purpose?

For purposes of discussion, of course. It is a discussion board...

I am getting frustrated/concerned with what feels like replies written from brain-fogged individuals.

And I get similarly frustrated and concerned when folks pigeonhole responses that don't match their personal desires into a box labelled some variation of "not mentally fit".

 

[Retros_x]

Primarily, a lot of people are reading this board on their phones on lunch breaks, or similar situations. This can lead to rushed reading, and rushed responses.

Additionally many threads are getting really long. I often won't read 50 pages of posts before me.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

For purposes of discussion, of course. It is a discussion board...



And I get similarly frustrated and concerned when folks pigeonhole responses that don't match their personal desires into a box labelled some variation of "not mentally fit".

Bad faith argument.
I responded to your claim with evidence.
You did not respond at all with counterclaims.
You repeated your initial claim.

 

[Umbran]

Bad faith argument.

This is more of the same. Whether you say "brain fog" or "bad faith", there's an assertion being made about another person's state of mind. That is, at it's core, a failure-prone approach to discussion.

I responded to your claim with evidence.
You did not respond at all with counterclaims.
You repeated your initial claim.

I didn't feel engaging with your "evidence" was going to go anywhere useful.

You seem to still be trying to argue that people are in a brain fog.

I, instead, am trying to point out that it is a fundamentally bad idea to ascribe mental states to people who aren't doing what you would prefer.

 

[Belen]

Additionally many threads are getting really long. I often won't read 50 pages of posts before me.

If a thread explodes, I will read the last 2-3 pages to see what people are currently discussing.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

This is more of the same. Whether you say "brain fog" or "bad faith", there's an assertion being made about another person's state of mind. That is, at it's core, a failure-prone approach to discussion.

There is so much to unpack here. First, bad faith and brain fog should not be linked by the statement "person's state of mind." Brain fog refers to a slight cognitive impairment, if used medically, being absent-minded, or "out of it," otherwise. Bad faith refers to communication where one participant is unwilling to respect the other and uses various tactics to avoid engaging in responding to arguments with rebuttals or counterarguments.

But there is a bigger issue: invalidating a caregiver's experience. I shared that because I am a caregiver of someone with worsening onset dementia, I perceive communication around me that reminds me of my experience with onset dementia. I perceive these communications as frustrating and worrying, and I wanted to rant about it. Now, back again, saying "person's state of mind" states that I assess someone else based on being reminded of my experiences. Either an accusation that I blindly assess people this way, or that I rigidly act on resemblances.

I didn't feel engaging with your "evidence" was going to go anywhere useful.

To restate what you said, "I don't want to engage in good-faith arguing." Good faith arguing would be to respond to what the other person offers as argument or evidence and provide rebuttals or counter-evidence.

You seem to still be trying to argue that people are in a brain fog.

Your words. What I am experiencing is conversations that remind me of what I see as brain fog.

I, instead, am trying to point out that it is a fundamentally bad idea to ascribe mental states to people who aren't doing what you would prefer.

When did I ever state that I disagree with the points that people make? That is something you are twisting my words to say or adding on your own!

 

[payn]

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

If this is referring to sealioning. I wonder who you think is doing it and why?

 

[Morrus]

Well, I think we’ve found out why the OP’s threads don’t seem to go well.

I can’t see this thread going anywhere useful, and I can already see the temperature rising. Let’s put this one to bed.