[628C6l0]

> Generally I just see it as a big warning sign that the quoter is more interested in winning than learning or getting to the truth of the matter and thus is best ignored.

But,to be fully honest, isn't it what this kind of conversation is about, ultimately speaking? There is a reason it happens mostly in low-stake contexts: dinner tables, casual conversation, comments section. Places where "bullshit pass" is implicitly granted to all participants. If we are not allowed to pick and choose and distort other's meanings then where's the fun and drama in all of this?

[thomasmeeks]

We differ on worldviews I think. I don’t find conversations interesting or fun if a bullshit pass has been granted. The point of a low stakes conversation to me is learning something about a person or subject — so distoring overmuch causes me to disengage (if & only if low stakes).

[lylecubed]

> The point of a low stakes conversation to me is learning something about a person or subject

That point of view is getting rarer and rarer, especially on the internet. Which is unfortunate. It has ruined online discourse for me almost completely.