Also, some topics take a lot of nuance time to explain properly. Unless you think the concept of “books” is stupid for some reason, which I’m starting to suspect that you do.
If someone is trying to convince you that vaccines are bad and their only argument is “read this book and you’ll see what I’m talking about” are you going to read the book? No.
Other anti-vaxxers replying with “I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, that’s what the book says!” Does not contribute to the argument.
You want to convince people something is true you need to present them with an argument, not a book report. If they already think you’re an idiot they’re not going to read your idiot book. When they present counter arguments that is your opportunity to present any nuance you have.
To put another way: it’s not my job to make your argument for you by studying a topic I don’t agree with.
Nobody is asking you to study the topic, but when the topic is “did Adam Smith like landlords” and you say “no” and then refuse to read what he actually said about it or listen to people who actually have read it then you look like an idiot. Like sorry bud, that’s how it is.
The person insisting I read 57 310 words, while providing no quotes, context, or arguments of their own is.
or listen to people who actually have read it
You mean like this post here:
I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
To which the response was simply “Read more”? No counter arguments. Just “If you don’t agree with me yet you haven’t studied the topic enough. Study it more until you agree with me.”
@CileTheSane@Cruxifux I aspire to this, but I also often fail to think ahead to save sources for future use, and so I’m stuck pulling from memory and trying to regurgitate the arguments or information
It’s one of the most prolific, if not THE most prolific book about the philosophy of capitalism of all time. It’s not the same as some anti vaxxer telling you to do your own research man.
I just get really fucking annoyed when people are like “Adam Smith hated landlords even!” When it’s not true. It makes it seem like capitalism isn’t inherently bad or oppressive, it’s the fault of our current system and the bourgeoisie we have now, and not the actual point of the beast. It lets capitalism and it’s proponents off easy, and that pisses me off. And it pisses me off more that when you explain it and give people the resources to understand it better they’re actively rude to you.
He’s not “some guy”, he’s Adam Smith, one of the main political philosophers responsible for what we know now as capitalism. And it’s a common misconception by people that don’t actually read books that he thinks that landlords, as we have them currently, were bad. Which isn’t true. He summarized it for you and then also added the whole “harvesting kelp” part as well, and then suggested if you want to understand more the nuances of how he feels about landlords you can read more about it. And for some reason you’re like “fuck you” hahaha
Like dude, I don’t get what your issue here is. It sounds like you’re just being bitchy for bitches sake.
If you can’t simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don’t understand it.
Also, some topics take a lot of nuance time to explain properly. Unless you think the concept of “books” is stupid for some reason, which I’m starting to suspect that you do.
If someone is trying to convince you that vaccines are bad and their only argument is “read this book and you’ll see what I’m talking about” are you going to read the book? No.
Other anti-vaxxers replying with “I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, that’s what the book says!” Does not contribute to the argument.
You want to convince people something is true you need to present them with an argument, not a book report. If they already think you’re an idiot they’re not going to read your idiot book. When they present counter arguments that is your opportunity to present any nuance you have.
To put another way: it’s not my job to make your argument for you by studying a topic I don’t agree with.
The argument was that Adam Smith hated landlords, which is incorrect, and he was citing his source you fucking sausage hahaha
Nobody is asking you to study the topic, but when the topic is “did Adam Smith like landlords” and you say “no” and then refuse to read what he actually said about it or listen to people who actually have read it then you look like an idiot. Like sorry bud, that’s how it is.
The person insisting I read 57 310 words, while providing no quotes, context, or arguments of their own is.
You mean like this post here:
To which the response was simply “Read more”? No counter arguments. Just “If you don’t agree with me yet you haven’t studied the topic enough. Study it more until you agree with me.”
Ya, I wonder why they got downvotes…
It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to study a topic before they comment on it. This is some next level brain rot you have son.
A 50 000+ word essay is as useful a source as saying “Google it”. You need to at least quote something to direct people where to look.
dO yOuR ReAsEaRch!!! Has never been effective at convincing people to change their opinion.
@CileTheSane @Cruxifux I aspire to this, but I also often fail to think ahead to save sources for future use, and so I’m stuck pulling from memory and trying to regurgitate the arguments or information
It’s one of the most prolific, if not THE most prolific book about the philosophy of capitalism of all time. It’s not the same as some anti vaxxer telling you to do your own research man.
I just get really fucking annoyed when people are like “Adam Smith hated landlords even!” When it’s not true. It makes it seem like capitalism isn’t inherently bad or oppressive, it’s the fault of our current system and the bourgeoisie we have now, and not the actual point of the beast. It lets capitalism and it’s proponents off easy, and that pisses me off. And it pisses me off more that when you explain it and give people the resources to understand it better they’re actively rude to you.
I can how it can piss you off when you try to explain something to someone and they respond with something like:
He did summarize it though.
There was no summary. Best was
“Some guy said rent is good” does not summarize why rent is good. At best it’s an appeal to authority.
He’s not “some guy”, he’s Adam Smith, one of the main political philosophers responsible for what we know now as capitalism. And it’s a common misconception by people that don’t actually read books that he thinks that landlords, as we have them currently, were bad. Which isn’t true. He summarized it for you and then also added the whole “harvesting kelp” part as well, and then suggested if you want to understand more the nuances of how he feels about landlords you can read more about it. And for some reason you’re like “fuck you” hahaha
Like dude, I don’t get what your issue here is. It sounds like you’re just being bitchy for bitches sake.
The projection is strong in this one.