Have you just never experienced what manners are good online discourse look like? I admit its rare thing, but your statement reads like you’re looking at a filet mignon and asking why its missing a leaf of iceberg lettuce, a dollop of ketchup, and a sesame seed bun.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
You’re putting too much emphasis on the “manners” part and not enough on the “good discourse” part.
Part of communicating is not only the idea you’re trying to discuss, but the context of where the requestor is in understanding the topic, and the tone the requestor is intending for the further discussion. I think you’re seeing the “disclaimers” as you call them as apologies, or some kind of shibboleth or dog whistle to those who may answer that the requestor is part of the “in group”. If so, I think that’s your mistake.
Instead the requestor is opening up to be vulnerable as a cost in search of truth. They’re admitting their gaps in knowledge and calling out places where they have some understanding. They’re giving a short map of their “swiss cheese” understanding of the topic. In effect they’re saying “I only know a few bits. There is a lot I don’t know, but I’d like to learn”.
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are
Sure. That would be fantastic, but if you’ve been on the internet for more than 5 minutes you’ll experience its littered with bad faith or loaded questions. People asking provocative questions simply spoiling for a fight or to “stir the pot”, trolls. Blame the rise of “talking points” the pre-canned ideology which requires no critical thinking, just call and response if you like. The reality is that this is most of political discussions on the internet. Instead this is a rare example of honest discussion, and you mistake it for something else.
nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
As I said above, you’re misreading the poster and think what you’re seeing is a credentialing exercise. I don’t believe it is.
That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.
Luckily, I believe the error is in your assessment of the situation instead of the content or intent.
Have you just never experienced what manners are good online discourse look like? I admit its rare thing, but your statement reads like you’re looking at a filet mignon and asking why its missing a leaf of iceberg lettuce, a dollop of ketchup, and a sesame seed bun.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.
The point is that what you described is not unique to lemmy.
You’re putting too much emphasis on the “manners” part and not enough on the “good discourse” part.
Part of communicating is not only the idea you’re trying to discuss, but the context of where the requestor is in understanding the topic, and the tone the requestor is intending for the further discussion. I think you’re seeing the “disclaimers” as you call them as apologies, or some kind of shibboleth or dog whistle to those who may answer that the requestor is part of the “in group”. If so, I think that’s your mistake.
Instead the requestor is opening up to be vulnerable as a cost in search of truth. They’re admitting their gaps in knowledge and calling out places where they have some understanding. They’re giving a short map of their “swiss cheese” understanding of the topic. In effect they’re saying “I only know a few bits. There is a lot I don’t know, but I’d like to learn”.
Sure. That would be fantastic, but if you’ve been on the internet for more than 5 minutes you’ll experience its littered with bad faith or loaded questions. People asking provocative questions simply spoiling for a fight or to “stir the pot”, trolls. Blame the rise of “talking points” the pre-canned ideology which requires no critical thinking, just call and response if you like. The reality is that this is most of political discussions on the internet. Instead this is a rare example of honest discussion, and you mistake it for something else.
As I said above, you’re misreading the poster and think what you’re seeing is a credentialing exercise. I don’t believe it is.
Luckily, I believe the error is in your assessment of the situation instead of the content or intent.