I’m trying to understand this particular line of discussion, but I’m failing to come up with a charitable reading. Help me not think this is not just more tone policing. Why focus on this particular comment and not engage with anything else I’ve posted in this thread? Is it just to call out that it was a “jerk move”? Yep, it was crass.Suggesting that his video was just to drive views (as the original poster did) and suggesting that his issue was that he was unwilling to make any changes to the AP (while making a snide dig at another poster, as you did) is both unconvincing, and a bit of a jerk move.
Huh. I certainly didn’t have @Retreater in mind when I posted that. I apologize for creating that impression, and I apologize to him even if he didn’t think it was directed at him.
Let me reiterate that I was talking about the discussion we’ve been having here for the last several months. The back and forth between the original video and the responses and the tweet all struck me as very familiar. I’m not going to apologize for making the dig. Expecting a community to respond magnanimously when one side is obviously not interested in having a conversation about the perceived problem (as evinced by that tweet I linked) is just not reasonable or fair to that community, and dealing with it can be exhausting.
Lost in all this is the point that PF2 isn’t good for all groups. I don’t think that’s really a controversial point. I don’t think even the most ardent proponent of PF2 here would contest that claim. I disagree the issue raised in this case is a systemic issue, but there’s no discourse to be had. Even if there were, then what would we conclude? That people have different tastes and like different things?