No, but it's not clear to me what work that 'if' is doing. Is this just a purely hypothetical, or do you just assume the antecedent is always true? Do you perhaps take a middle path and concede the possibility people might be persuaded by "race science" for reasons other than mere "fancy wording"?
> they should indeed to take some time for introspection.
Or they could engage in dialogue with people who disagree with them but exercise good faith, which is exactly what happens on SSC.
> Anyway, according to your comment history you definitely fit the introspection mold. Zero surprises there.
If I aggravated you enough that you feel the need to dig through my comment history, I apologize. But don't presume to know my inner mental states. My tone is definitely hostile, but I consider it an fair response to your rather dismissive (and largely false) characterization a group of people I (and many others here on HN) have come to greatly respect.
No, but it's not clear to me what work that 'if' is doing. Is this just a purely hypothetical, or do you just assume the antecedent is always true? Do you perhaps take a middle path and concede the possibility people might be persuaded by "race science" for reasons other than mere "fancy wording"?
> they should indeed to take some time for introspection.
Or they could engage in dialogue with people who disagree with them but exercise good faith, which is exactly what happens on SSC.
> Anyway, according to your comment history you definitely fit the introspection mold. Zero surprises there.
If I aggravated you enough that you feel the need to dig through my comment history, I apologize. But don't presume to know my inner mental states. My tone is definitely hostile, but I consider it an fair response to your rather dismissive (and largely false) characterization a group of people I (and many others here on HN) have come to greatly respect.