Like anyone, there are comments I receive on posts which can make me laugh and/or smile, others which leave me puzzled, and yet others which result in me reaching for some Aleve.
For the first set of comments, I will typically leave a positive response in return. With regard to the second set of comments, I'll typically attempt to respond to the question(s) the best I can, to hopefully alleviate any confusion. Lastly, when it comes to the third set of comments, it all depends on the tone of the comment whether or not I respond.
The third and final set of comments I've received can be broken down into two subsets: 1) Angry/insulting and 2) Condescending/know-it-all (but without factual support).
Now, I'll admit, when I receive a quick, "You're a (bleeping) idiot! You don't know what the hell you're talking about" kind of comment, I will typically, rightly or wrongly, respond with a short, wiseass remark of my own. It's always been my philosophy to respond to such insults with sarcasm.
If someone makes a comment where he or she sounds like a condescending know-it-all, tells me that the facts showcase me to be wrong, yet doesn't provide any of those facts to prove such, then chances are I'm not going to respond. I received such a comment last night, and one thing I've learned about (most) such comments, according to them, the "facts" may showcase the opposing viewpoint to be wrong, yet these "facts" are reported by talking heads on the radio, Fox News, as well as writers on conspiracy-oriented sites. In other words, these "facts" are only considered to be facts by those whom have difficulty discerning facts from opinions, myths, and conspiracies.
There's always room for dissent, but if a dissenter wants to engage in a civilized discussion with me about one of my posts, I'd recommend you stray away from the insults, and if you state that what I wrote in my post is factually inaccurate, then provide credible source material to illustrate that. Yes, I realize "fact-checkers" are liberally biased and all, but there's a distinct difference between a fact and an opinion, and one can certainly not replace the latter with the former. So, no, I won't regard a Rush Limbaugh quote or a column written by Ann Coulter as a credible source. No matter how much we wish for an opinion to be true, that doesn't make it such.
So, in other words, so long as someone with a differing opinion from my own treats me with respect and adds some substance to the discussion through facts, logic, and credible source material, I'll be happy to engage in a civilized discussion with him or her. However, if the comment leaves me feeling like Linda Blair from The Exorcist due to how far back my eyes rolled, chances are that "civilized" discussion won't take place, not here at least. Thanks for listening. Have a nice day.
For the first set of comments, I will typically leave a positive response in return. With regard to the second set of comments, I'll typically attempt to respond to the question(s) the best I can, to hopefully alleviate any confusion. Lastly, when it comes to the third set of comments, it all depends on the tone of the comment whether or not I respond.
The third and final set of comments I've received can be broken down into two subsets: 1) Angry/insulting and 2) Condescending/know-it-all (but without factual support).
Now, I'll admit, when I receive a quick, "You're a (bleeping) idiot! You don't know what the hell you're talking about" kind of comment, I will typically, rightly or wrongly, respond with a short, wiseass remark of my own. It's always been my philosophy to respond to such insults with sarcasm.
If someone makes a comment where he or she sounds like a condescending know-it-all, tells me that the facts showcase me to be wrong, yet doesn't provide any of those facts to prove such, then chances are I'm not going to respond. I received such a comment last night, and one thing I've learned about (most) such comments, according to them, the "facts" may showcase the opposing viewpoint to be wrong, yet these "facts" are reported by talking heads on the radio, Fox News, as well as writers on conspiracy-oriented sites. In other words, these "facts" are only considered to be facts by those whom have difficulty discerning facts from opinions, myths, and conspiracies.
There's always room for dissent, but if a dissenter wants to engage in a civilized discussion with me about one of my posts, I'd recommend you stray away from the insults, and if you state that what I wrote in my post is factually inaccurate, then provide credible source material to illustrate that. Yes, I realize "fact-checkers" are liberally biased and all, but there's a distinct difference between a fact and an opinion, and one can certainly not replace the latter with the former. So, no, I won't regard a Rush Limbaugh quote or a column written by Ann Coulter as a credible source. No matter how much we wish for an opinion to be true, that doesn't make it such.
So, in other words, so long as someone with a differing opinion from my own treats me with respect and adds some substance to the discussion through facts, logic, and credible source material, I'll be happy to engage in a civilized discussion with him or her. However, if the comment leaves me feeling like Linda Blair from The Exorcist due to how far back my eyes rolled, chances are that "civilized" discussion won't take place, not here at least. Thanks for listening. Have a nice day.
ur gay.
ReplyDelete