> Here’s one such case: Say someone wrote something. You think they’re wrong, so you write a manifesto arguing that they’re wrong.
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Pause right there.
How does that "so" conjunction work? Given that you think they're wrong, why would you want to write a manifesto arguing that they're wrong? What's your motivation behind it?
There can be a plethora of possible motivations, all of them valid. Just to name a few:
- The original statement is in direct conflict with your world view. Because it's being read and shared, you want to write a counterpiece because you, too, wish to be heard.
- You believe that the original statement represents a belief that's factually incorrect, so you want to write a corrigendum because you believe that policies based on false premises are bound to lead astray.
- The original statement is written in a way that touches you emotionally. Perhaps it disparages a part of the world that's important to you. You want to respond in defense of that part.
- You don't find the matter particularly important, but you see an omission in the original statement's reasoning that you think you can amend. You write a supplementary response to improve your (and hopefully others') understanding of the problem at hand.
- You just have that irresistible urge originating $GOD knows where, that you have no better name for than "xkcd #386".
Depending on the circumstances, you may or may not want to follow the various norms that Dynomight mentions in their article. But I think it's of paramount importance to be self-aware of our own motivations. It also helps to be explicit about them.
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Pause right there.
How does that "so" conjunction work? Given that you think they're wrong, why would you want to write a manifesto arguing that they're wrong? What's your motivation behind it?
There can be a plethora of possible motivations, all of them valid. Just to name a few:
- The original statement is in direct conflict with your world view. Because it's being read and shared, you want to write a counterpiece because you, too, wish to be heard.
- You believe that the original statement represents a belief that's factually incorrect, so you want to write a corrigendum because you believe that policies based on false premises are bound to lead astray.
- The original statement is written in a way that touches you emotionally. Perhaps it disparages a part of the world that's important to you. You want to respond in defense of that part.
- You don't find the matter particularly important, but you see an omission in the original statement's reasoning that you think you can amend. You write a supplementary response to improve your (and hopefully others') understanding of the problem at hand.
- You just have that irresistible urge originating $GOD knows where, that you have no better name for than "xkcd #386".
Depending on the circumstances, you may or may not want to follow the various norms that Dynomight mentions in their article. But I think it's of paramount importance to be self-aware of our own motivations. It also helps to be explicit about them.