Is it possible to have a conversation with nuance on the internet?

[shadoworc01]

@lukeburrage

I’m not discussing anything with you. I’m also not attacking you. There’s nothing to discuss and nothing to attack. I’m not posting here to start a discussion with you or anyone else.

I posted a link to an Article I thought was interesting and had some observations I’ve not seen outlined elsewhere. That’s it.

It’s not my job to now defend the article, the author, the conclusion, the depth, the breadth, or anything else.

I’m not saying I agree with the article 100%, nor that I disagree with you 100%. I’m not saying anything like that.

Maybe if others had responded, I’d be happy to discuss it with them. But now the discussion is “how Scott can steer the forum into his theories of political original sin without even reading the article ” and how he can, after finally reading the article, criticize it for not conforming to his views enough.

@lukeburrage

If someone denies nuance in a topic of conversation, I’m not interested in having a conversation with that person at all.

If nuance is a subtle difference in meaning with the antithesis of it being “thing good” vs “thing bad” (as so well phrased by Lindsay Ellis) then saying more than what is posted is the first step in having nuance, and denying someone permission to add onto an analysis when you yourself added nothing is the death of nuance in the cradle.