Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
Gizortnik always argues logically. All I see from you is personal attack and whinging.
Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
It's fine as long as you're not arguing with him, which means contesting the claims he makes.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
"You people"? Have you seen "The Pawnbroker"?
((white))?
Later.