Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8451791" data-attributes="member: 16814">This feels a complete non-sequitur.&nbsp; I wasn't engaging with things [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] said.&nbsp; I was making my own point.&nbsp; If your statements are solely limited to things Umbran said, then okay, I withdraw them because Umbran didn't really say anything on the nature of allowable criticism, just some platitudes about self-reflection that amount to preaching rather than assisting the conversation.&nbsp; However, if your statements are only limited to this, I don't really care about the craft of deploying platitudes to seem wise.I was speaking to how criticism works on these boards.&nbsp; If I want to criticize 5e, I have to constantly make deferential statements to the 5e fanbase about how much I like 5e and that it is a good game.&nbsp; This I have to do just to get the criticism in the door without the &quot;5e hater&quot; tag being applied to anything I say and the criticism dismissed.&nbsp; Doing thing, though, only gets me past that first hurdle, and then only slightly better than half the time as it's still deployed with depressing regularity.&nbsp; That's just dealing with the easiest form of dismissal.&nbsp; And this is obvious because the easiest way to criticize 5e is ask how 5e can be modified to fix whatever it is I'm talking about.&nbsp; This is the acceptable way to criticism 5e, because it's properly deferential to 5e as just being the bestest.Negative to me?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I viewed it as mostly empty, though.&nbsp; You didn't say anything to the points I was making and instead tried to establish a false equivalency with other things, such as comparing my claim that deference to the in-group is required prior to criticism to both general limits on behavior for conversation or that deference is also the same thing as just engaging with others' statements.&nbsp; This is badly flawed. As for your style and word choice, I have zero problems with big words or an intellectual style.&nbsp; I very much enjoy [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s writing and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], both of whom are regularly attacked for being too intellectual in posting habits.&nbsp; No, rather my point was that you turned up the style and went to larger words to hide that that what you were saying was establishing some false equivalences to what I said in order to try and knock their stuffing out.&nbsp; You amped up the intellectual style at the same time you engaged in rhetorical tricks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8451791, member: 16814"] This feels a complete non-sequitur. I wasn't engaging with things [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] said. I was making my own point. If your statements are solely limited to things Umbran said, then okay, I withdraw them because Umbran didn't really say anything on the nature of allowable criticism, just some platitudes about self-reflection that amount to preaching rather than assisting the conversation. However, if your statements are only limited to this, I don't really care about the craft of deploying platitudes to seem wise. I was speaking to how criticism works on these boards. If I want to criticize 5e, I have to constantly make deferential statements to the 5e fanbase about how much I like 5e and that it is a good game. This I have to do just to get the criticism in the door without the "5e hater" tag being applied to anything I say and the criticism dismissed. Doing thing, though, only gets me past that first hurdle, and then only slightly better than half the time as it's still deployed with depressing regularity. That's just dealing with the easiest form of dismissal. And this is obvious because the easiest way to criticize 5e is ask how 5e can be modified to fix whatever it is I'm talking about. This is the acceptable way to criticism 5e, because it's properly deferential to 5e as just being the bestest. Negative to me? No. I viewed it as mostly empty, though. You didn't say anything to the points I was making and instead tried to establish a false equivalency with other things, such as comparing my claim that deference to the in-group is required prior to criticism to both general limits on behavior for conversation or that deference is also the same thing as just engaging with others' statements. This is badly flawed. As for your style and word choice, I have zero problems with big words or an intellectual style. I very much enjoy [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s writing and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], both of whom are regularly attacked for being too intellectual in posting habits. No, rather my point was that you turned up the style and went to larger words to hide that that what you were saying was establishing some false equivalences to what I said in order to try and knock their stuffing out. You amped up the intellectual style at the same time you engaged in rhetorical tricks. [/QUOTE]

Verification