Well alright, I might have worded my comment a bit wrong in regard of the relation the title has with the article content.
What I actually mean to say is that there is a lot of talk about what European philosophers supposedly think about non-europeans and that the examples of these European philosophies are non-existent in the article.
Sure there are a few name drops, but there is no actual depth behind any of the words in the article. No actual reasoning on why Europeans are supposedly morally bankrupt except for the rather strange part in the beginning where a hypothetical coalition of Iran and allies would be stopped by the western allies if they did the same thing as the Israeli are doing now in gaza.
And I can’t help but think; if they are really that outraged by what’s going on in gaza, why don’t they do anything about it like the hypothetical West would have?
Still haven’t managed to barf out any actual concrete criticism of the article. That’s what anybody with actual reading comprehension skill can see reading your comments. What you’re doing here is whinging, and literally doing what you’re accusing the article of. 🤡
I mean you can simply read the article you yourself posted to see what I mean.
How much more concrete than “there isn’t much depth to any of the articles content” do you want me to be?
Instead of digging your heels in, stop with the article link-dumping.
The latter is not just criticism on you but all the other “supposed” content sharers. If you can’t even be bothered to post a short summary of the content you post, why would I bother with clicking on it.
After two days of going at this you’re still unable to articulate any actual point. Meanwhile, it’s an absurd demand that people chew up the content of the article and feed it to you like a baby bird. If you want to have a discussion then read the submissions and make concrete arguments regarding them. These sort of vapid comments just add noise as opposed to creating any meaningful discussion.
The point was quite clear, I’m not going to feed it to you like a baby bird and I’m not going to waste more time on that, just saying “nu uh explain yourself” doesn’t change anything on that front.
And it’s not absurd to expect people to actually post content instead of just dumping their latest fancy somewhere. We got bots that can do the same.
A post with real content like a summary or even a decent title with a synopsis are a sign for me that the content is worth consuming, instead of just more noise that dilutes existing content actually worth reading.
sounds like somebody needs to work on basic reading comprehension
Well alright, I might have worded my comment a bit wrong in regard of the relation the title has with the article content.
What I actually mean to say is that there is a lot of talk about what European philosophers supposedly think about non-europeans and that the examples of these European philosophies are non-existent in the article.
Sure there are a few name drops, but there is no actual depth behind any of the words in the article. No actual reasoning on why Europeans are supposedly morally bankrupt except for the rather strange part in the beginning where a hypothetical coalition of Iran and allies would be stopped by the western allies if they did the same thing as the Israeli are doing now in gaza.
And I can’t help but think; if they are really that outraged by what’s going on in gaza, why don’t they do anything about it like the hypothetical West would have?
It’s figurative barf on a paper.
It’s amazing how you managed to write up a this word salad without managing to make any actual point or criticism of the article.
Man, that reading comprehension comment of yours really came back to bite you huh?
Still haven’t managed to barf out any actual concrete criticism of the article. That’s what anybody with actual reading comprehension skill can see reading your comments. What you’re doing here is whinging, and literally doing what you’re accusing the article of. 🤡
I mean you can simply read the article you yourself posted to see what I mean.
How much more concrete than “there isn’t much depth to any of the articles content” do you want me to be?
Instead of digging your heels in, stop with the article link-dumping.
The latter is not just criticism on you but all the other “supposed” content sharers. If you can’t even be bothered to post a short summary of the content you post, why would I bother with clicking on it.
After two days of going at this you’re still unable to articulate any actual point. Meanwhile, it’s an absurd demand that people chew up the content of the article and feed it to you like a baby bird. If you want to have a discussion then read the submissions and make concrete arguments regarding them. These sort of vapid comments just add noise as opposed to creating any meaningful discussion.
The point was quite clear, I’m not going to feed it to you like a baby bird and I’m not going to waste more time on that, just saying “nu uh explain yourself” doesn’t change anything on that front.
And it’s not absurd to expect people to actually post content instead of just dumping their latest fancy somewhere. We got bots that can do the same.
A post with real content like a summary or even a decent title with a synopsis are a sign for me that the content is worth consuming, instead of just more noise that dilutes existing content actually worth reading.
The point that you are unable to make a coherent argument is very clear indeed.