>For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of >the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.
But it does, don't agree? OK.
>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.
>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is
>a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.
> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.
Why? Who cares if the other person is genuine or not? The idea is still an idea.
> because it is a low-trust environment
therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it.
> deliberately so.
deliberately? How? Just China or the entire internet? I was talking about the entire internet btw.
> all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt
they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.
> maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters
I really don't. I am failing to see it and you clearly cannot explain it well enough or simply are saying it without any concrete reasoning behind it. Either way, you haven't explained why it matters.
> Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.
I don't understand what this weird pontificating is about.
>therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it.
>they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.
Because the goal is not to expose ideas, the goal is to change the conversation so they can be hidden.
>I really don't. I am failing to see it and you clearly cannot explain it well enough or simply are saying it without any concrete reasoning behind it. Either way, you haven't explained why it matters.
Well, thanks for the criticism, you are probably right, I'll work on it. Have a good life.
But it does, don't agree? OK.
>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.
Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.
>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is >a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.
That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.
> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.
That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.