Yeah and if you force context where it’s not needed you’re actually just piling more buzzwords to back up your buzzwords. If yoy actually want a dialect it requires a second party, and you have to meet that party where they are if you have any chance of trying to connect with them in the first place.
You’re referring to Greek dialectics, not dialectical materialism. That’s kinda proving my point, the point was lost because context wasn’t provided. Context is necessary a lot of the time, and I’ve yet to see it backfire.
That’s still wildly presumptuous. Currently what I’ve seen of dialectical materialism is it being used as a linguistic multitool to confuse and dictate whatever terms are necessary to make your point at tge cost of having to declare your opponent incapable or unwilling to ‘learn’ or ‘understand’ what I can only assume at this point is a very clever way to escape a conversation and declare yourself intellectually superior. Not really effective if you’re trying to reachput to everyday people.
The fact that you were ready to define away my explainayion on how to rwach people tells me that it doesn’t matter to you at all what another person has only that they agree with you at the end, and I think you’re deluding yourself if you thknk the smiles and nods are a victory in that case.
Nah, I used it as an example. Dialectical materialism is a worldview that sees the world as an interconnected mix of ever-changing processes, propelled by internal contradictions in everything. It’s how I view the world, it’s the Marxist standpoint. When a metaphysician analyzes something, they tend to abstract it and try to categorize it as though it’s an individual snapshot, while a dialectician will focus primarily on how it came to be, where it appears to be going, and how it relates to everything else.
Context matters. Sometimes that means I need to take a few extra paragraphs to build my point. Do you have an example of a point I made that had too much context?
I am moving on after this but if you are on the internet and your opening statement, by either topline comment or tacitly invited rebuttal, is more than a paragraph, you’ve painted yourself as someone who is going to basically use the same points in as broad as a way as possible and that, honestly, you are absurdly easy to provoke.
In neurtal or hostile setti gs you will be ignored. In friendly setting I’m sure you’re told you’re greatly well read and very smart.
As for me I just know I’m in a thread addressing redfash voter supression.
I don’t see an example here, nor do I have reason to believe the limits of reaching people is a single paragraph. The only people willing to change their minds in the first place are the ones willing to read at least a few sentences.
Yeah and if you force context where it’s not needed you’re actually just piling more buzzwords to back up your buzzwords. If yoy actually want a dialect it requires a second party, and you have to meet that party where they are if you have any chance of trying to connect with them in the first place.
You’re referring to Greek dialectics, not dialectical materialism. That’s kinda proving my point, the point was lost because context wasn’t provided. Context is necessary a lot of the time, and I’ve yet to see it backfire.
That’s still wildly presumptuous. Currently what I’ve seen of dialectical materialism is it being used as a linguistic multitool to confuse and dictate whatever terms are necessary to make your point at tge cost of having to declare your opponent incapable or unwilling to ‘learn’ or ‘understand’ what I can only assume at this point is a very clever way to escape a conversation and declare yourself intellectually superior. Not really effective if you’re trying to reachput to everyday people.
The fact that you were ready to define away my explainayion on how to rwach people tells me that it doesn’t matter to you at all what another person has only that they agree with you at the end, and I think you’re deluding yourself if you thknk the smiles and nods are a victory in that case.
Nah, I used it as an example. Dialectical materialism is a worldview that sees the world as an interconnected mix of ever-changing processes, propelled by internal contradictions in everything. It’s how I view the world, it’s the Marxist standpoint. When a metaphysician analyzes something, they tend to abstract it and try to categorize it as though it’s an individual snapshot, while a dialectician will focus primarily on how it came to be, where it appears to be going, and how it relates to everything else.
Context matters. Sometimes that means I need to take a few extra paragraphs to build my point. Do you have an example of a point I made that had too much context?
I am moving on after this but if you are on the internet and your opening statement, by either topline comment or tacitly invited rebuttal, is more than a paragraph, you’ve painted yourself as someone who is going to basically use the same points in as broad as a way as possible and that, honestly, you are absurdly easy to provoke.
In neurtal or hostile setti gs you will be ignored. In friendly setting I’m sure you’re told you’re greatly well read and very smart.
As for me I just know I’m in a thread addressing redfash voter supression.
Do what that what you will.
I don’t see an example here, nor do I have reason to believe the limits of reaching people is a single paragraph. The only people willing to change their minds in the first place are the ones willing to read at least a few sentences.
Well if that’s true then I expect some testimonials in my inbox in the future. Have a good one!