Aw, are you hurt that I don't think your linked article is worth reading, based on having gone through and read the initial intro/'teaser' for that article? What did you think that initial teaser is meant to be used for, if not to gauge whether or not the whole article is worth a read?

It's like providing a free sample of some food product in a store, and the person goes "yuck", and now you're getting all pissed off and saying "well you didn't eat a whole serving size before going yuck, so you clearly have no taste!".

If you're involved in peer reviewed work, you should have thicker skin to criticism.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yup, you've cracked the code! The deep, philosophical truth is that free samples exist so we can say 'yuck.' My mind is reeling from this Socratic revelation. Truly, we have a giant of philosophy on our hands here.

I love how your entire defense rests on the intellectual rigor of taste testing an abstract. The first paragraph didn't emotionally gratify me, therefore the entire argument is invalid is a peer-review methodology I've only ever seen in YouTube comments. But please, tell me more about thicker skin from the person who wrote a whole paragraph because they did not like a teaser. 🤣

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You seem overly triggered that I found the teaser off-putting, so much so that you're conflating what I'd initially stated and what I'd used later as an explanation of how teasers work.

I basically noted that the person is padding in useless words, and that they were referencing highly contested concepts as though they're pre-defined/determined (twisting). It's the kind of stuff I used to see in first year student papers back in uni. Like even in the title, there's no real purpose for using "reality of" when you can just say "Contemporary Canadian Imperialism", the attempt to expand that out and tether what's fairly likely a subjective article to what most people consider 'objective' (reality) is just academic obfuscation. If this person had an editor, they should've been underlining stuff all over the place.

Even more, it's a piece published by a US University that seems pretty clearly to try and foster animosity amongst Canadian demographic subsets and to paint Canada in a negative light. Funding for this sort of article, its publication and distribution, at a time when the US is aggressively targeting Canada with economic warfare and making statements about annexing the territory, is at the very least questionable.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You seem to be doing a lot of projecting. I Iove how you just keep replying with one word salad after another in sad attempts to act like you're some sort of an intellectual, while it's evident that you lack even the most basic reading comprehension. Amazing how you're able to make an analysis of a paper based on having read half a paragraph. You must really get off on making a clown of yourself in public.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

All of your responses to me have just been thinly veilled passive aggressive insults that don't refute anything that I've said.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think both of you could learn about the term "be the bigger man." How absolutely disappointing that you both react to each other with spiraling passive-aggression rather than sympathy or mutual understanding. Please, let's keep lemmy habitable.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think I've made any passive aggressive comments -- most/all of my replies are briefly noting the other posters aggressiveness, and then expanding on points I'd made to try and clarify, in hopes that the other poster would grow up, or to allow them to continue to lob personal attacks to highlight just how baseless their position is/was. After recognising the other persons a .ml, and the reputation .ml has, I realise there's likely not much point to it though.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

^ when you lack even a shred of self awareness

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

this is on both of you :|

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not pretending I have some moral high ground here. However, doing hand wringing about decorum while ignoring the fact that wampus here is trying to dismiss a study on Canada's role in colonialism is focusing entirely on the wrong thing.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd feel much more sympathetic to that response if you hadn't been such an asshole in this thread.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

A sharp dismissal of absurdity draws a clear line, shows others they don’t have to entertain every bad argument, and prevents the conversation from being derailed. If you want to spend your life debating trolls then go ahead and do that.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago

cry harder