That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
That works much better, I agree. I’m not in favor of tone-policing, just reigning in what can be ableist and making sure we don’t leave narratives logically uncontested. Ridicule has its place, ableism does not, and I think credulous is a much more useful term rhetorically as it doesn’t repeat Yogopnik’s recent critical error.
If we leave weak arguments uncontested, then we lose out on a learning opportunity for onlookers, even if the one raising the argument has no intention of changing their mind.
yeah that’s a fair call out
Yep, I really enjoy your comments and posts, this was just a bit of hopefully useful critique so that we can better expand.
The critique is very much appreciated, and on point as always.
Thanks, comrade! Keep up the good work! 🫡
O7
🫡