• Best_Jeanist@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn’t easy, and it’s all frantic backpedaling.

    For the record I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re just going to waste everyone’s time.

    Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

    • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      it’s all frantic backpedaling.

      Kettle

      I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy

      I don’t necessarily disagree. It’s definitely not a holistic view, but I haven’t found much else that even asks that question much less has any real methodology behind it. Have you?

      What would be the correct methodology in your opinion?

      I have no intention of elaborating

      You’re not communicating anything other than the vaguest of concern trolling. You clearly have thoughts and opinions, this is a place to share those.

      You can’t both be upset when you are misunderstand and refuse to communicate.

      Quit backpedaling and say it with your chest.

      Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

      You do know how to use sci-hub right? You have the title, or if you’re morally opposed to that option a quick Google and you can pay $30 here for it.

      However, before you gish-gallop into concern trolling the source I linked why don’t you provide one, or multiple, of your own that supports the concerns you have surrounding “nuance”.