Got it. Since the posts were from this thread itself I just numbered them instead of linking them but I’ll link them from now on.
I went back through #49 and #55. My current map of the attacks and unresolved concerns is:
- the word acknowledged made my criticism sound like your own view.
- LMD could have got you there months ago sounded like accusing you of irrationality / hypocrisy / resisting error correction.
- forum quietness + bandwidth / full time thing sounded like implying you don’t respond enough or your posts are too low effort.
- the capitalism thread felt closed point was part of the broader negativity and lacked enough specifics to change or debate.
- people cared and stopped trying + outclass people at debate was part of the broader negativity and seemed not established by prior discussion.
- #45 / #54 raised too many connected complaints at once.
- my earlier positive feedback and like on Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies - #221 by Elliot made it look like I had accepted your earlier answer.
- the people in general line sounded like saying you were below average at some philosophy skill.
- early diagnostic feedback looked inconsistent with already posting a lot and saying positive things.
- the pattern looked like saving up multiple grievances and sharing them simultaneously.
I think I’ve already addressed a lot of this, but I can see some parts may not have landed. I need your or anyone else’s help to know which one I should go into next. I’ll start with 8, the clearest repeated one: by people I discuss ideas with I meant slacks and discords like this quant one and by people in general I meant people I have to substantively interact with because of my context which is mostly students for projects/assignments and professors and administrators. I didn’t mean your average Joe. I didn’t see then and still don’t see how interaction friction says anything about your philosophy or cognitive skill. I was trying to describe my sense of interaction friction, not your philosophy skill.