I've been thinking about writing a post opposing anarchism for days and days. I reply to pro anarchism posts that are three hours old and have zero upvotes. I don't think debate should feel like a negative experience, putting your idea's through the fire should strengthen them or change them depending on the arguments you get into. Debate should feel good. Speaking only with people you agree with is just living in a circle jerking echo chamber.
That is why I debate with @satire, and why I did so when he was named @positive. You learn more from civil debates with people that have different points of view.
I think you should be able to have such debates. I don't see a problem with Satire doing so, or you for that matter, but how you do it can leave a perception of antagonism, or it can lead a perception of wanting to have a civil debate. There is a difference and I think that is what @satire is recognizing as well. There is good DRAMA with antagonism, but that comes at a price.
I've been thinking about writing a post opposing anarchism for days and days. I reply to pro anarchism posts that are three hours old and have zero upvotes. I don't think debate should feel like a negative experience, putting your idea's through the fire should strengthen them or change them depending on the arguments you get into. Debate should feel good. Speaking only with people you agree with is just living in a circle jerking echo chamber.
That is why I debate with @satire, and why I did so when he was named @positive. You learn more from civil debates with people that have different points of view.
I think you should be able to have such debates. I don't see a problem with Satire doing so, or you for that matter, but how you do it can leave a perception of antagonism, or it can lead a perception of wanting to have a civil debate. There is a difference and I think that is what @satire is recognizing as well. There is good DRAMA with antagonism, but that comes at a price.
Right.