wrt point 1, i understand that stuff like that can be nai but the way it was presented pinged me, theres no way around it for me really
im going to focus on point 2 though because its the one i can speak the most on:
i didnt like
#282 because for the most part it was very sarcastic/dismissive and didnt really address my issues in a meaningful way. i realize for a lot of this like the semantics based reads, he cant really answer that stuff and thats understandable but but tonally it felt really incredibly off, and the stuff where he actually had reasoning like his reads on newcomb/katze it was very underwhelming.
i, again, did not hammer this home at the time precisely because i didnt think continued arguing around these points was going to be helpful
Bookmarks