it’s not about volume. It’s about what you choose to engage with and what you ignore and how you do so.
of course you’ll disagree with me - I’d have expected nothing less. But if you lot see yourselves as somehow better, more tolerant, more grounded in your moral code then there are some basics I’d have expected. things like avoided triangulation and whinging, avoiding ad hominem arguments (yours stand or not on their merits not on the others personality or supposed stupidity), name calling. I’ve seen posts where people complain- as you do - that the response is off topic when it is related to the thread, to insist of people answering as they want rather then as the responder chooses.
out of curiosity- and I ask myself this question often - do you actually care what people on hotcopper think. It’s easy to get sucked in to defending oneself or one’s thoughts and I know I do, particularly when it is a topic that matters to me. But those are not so frequent for me.
I am regularly surprised by how much some people claim to know. I could possibly write a lot more about climate change - a close and dear friend was a Nobel prize winner, I was brought up with science at the core of my family life, and I have read many many articles and different views. But I still feel ill equipped to comment. If I did so I would be taking any things at surface or face value. How well do you understand the science?
back to the people. There are indeed some vile people who write on hotcopper but they are recognisably bigoted and ill informed. Many of the others just have ordinary every day preferences which is not wildly different from anyone. Much of what is written here is opinion, inferences and meaning even if based on facts or evidence . And however bizarre those preferences might seem to you if I drill down to it at the core are values not so different to mine and probably yours
logic means nothing. It is the premise that matters
