Sometimes the rude guest sees what the polite ones have agreed not to mention."

[quintessentone]

I am not One-Dimensional. 

I need to know a persons background and why they think the way they do. 

So - no — I can’t just address an article you post — that you want to project a certain mindset — without knowing (or at least an idea) of where the author is coming from. 

Stephen Nagy is extremely precise in his wording. This may take awhile. 
 

I agree that the sources' political leanings and/or the writers' biases should be looked at first. With this Stephen Nagy person, the OPs source title is a question not an assertion, so it appears the writer hasn't a clue what is going on and can only throw out speculation.

As for Trump being right well that remains to be seen because the movers and shakers who run governments are still moving and shaking.

[UltraBudgie]

dissecting of sources rather than addressing content is intellectually off-putting

it smacks of critical theory, ignoring content over context

watching this back and forth the other day i was thinking it may be a good idea to stop providing attribution and source links and only provide bare quotes

it might help break this nasty habit

[quintessentone]

dissecting of sources rather than addressing content is intellectually off-putting

it smacks of critical theory, ignoring content over context

watching this back and forth the other day i was thinking it may be a good idea to stop providing attribution and source links and only provide bare quotes

it might help break this nasty habit

I think the nasty habit here has always been to provide one's POV without explaining how one arrived at that POV, which usually does not involve any type of research or critical thinking and most of all not providing any sources so the potential audience can actually understand where someone is coming from.

That is the nasty habit here that needs to be addressed.

[UltraBudgie]

I think the nasty habit here has always been to provide one's POV without explaining how one arrived at that POV, which usually does not involve any type of research or critical thinking and most of all not providing any sources so the potential audience can actually understand where someone is coming from.

That is the nasty habit here that needs to be addressed.

nah

if i say "the sky is blue today"

then you should say "oh really?" and check for yourself and see what you think

my explaining how i feel about the weather and describing all the other blue things i have seen should have nothing to do with it

[quintessentone]

nah

if i say "the sky is blue today"

then you should say "oh really?" and check for yourself and see what you think

my explaining how i feel about the weather and describing all the other blue things i have seen should have nothing to do with it

So now you are telling me and others what to say and do? Not going to happen.

[UltraBudgie]

So now you are telling me and others what to say and do? Not going to happen.

Oh noes you have totally defeated what I was saying by addressing the content and not the context¹!

Thwarted again.

Sad budgie.


¹ Edit: your perceived context, via which you can derail discussion into any cul-de-sac you want

[quintessentone]

Oh noes you have totally defeated what I was saying by addressing the content and not the context!

Thwarted again.

Sad budgie.

How can the content be addressed if one is questioning it's context?

[UltraBudgie]

How can the content be addressed if one is questioning it's context?

Yep, that's how it works.

[quintessentone]

Yep, that's how it works.

Well, that is not how it works for many other members here.

[Oldcarpy2]

You don't have to be on the left to disapprove of Trump.