[mynameisvlad]

> which is not interesting, curious, intellectually-stimulating discourse

Yet, here you are, continuing to reply. Maybe you should stop stooping to the clearly awfully low bar and falling for my schtick. It obviously isn't intellectually stimulating enough or worthy enough of your precious time.

[adamrezich]

why are you continuing to blatantly disregard the rules of this website? do you think your posts are making this community a better or worse place?

[mynameisvlad]

What, exactly, do you think you are adding to this platform?

You think that telling people their opinion doesn’t matter because they chose to have an article state it for them is helpful?

You think that constantly implying and downright saying the people you are interacting with are below you, your intelligence and your time, are providing benefit to the discourse on the site?

You’re just as bad if not worse and you certainly don’t come from a place where you can even remotely tell others when they “blatantly disregard the rules of this website” when your first comment throws them out the window and the rest are acting as if they’re in a different dimension.

In other words, get off that high horse.

Next time, engage by actually listening to another person, whether it’s their words or an article they provide, and comment on that. Not whatever bullshit game you think you’re playing by pretending to be above it all.

[adamrezich]

> You think that telling people their opinion doesn’t matter because they chose to have an article state it for them is helpful?

yes. imagine if everyone here posted blogpost URLs in place of comments, as if that constituted a valid discussion—this site would be a wreck. encouraging the minimal amount of critical thinking necessary to show that you have internalized something you have read to the point where you can restate it in your own words is a generally good idea for a good-faith discussion-based website. the best discussions on this website involve people putting effort into conveying their thoughts and rhetoric, instead of linking to the thoughts and rhetoric of others and instructing them to read it in its entirety before replying, such that they have to put effort into formulating and then conveying their own counter-opinion, while you had to do no such thing. that doesn't really sound like a good-faith discussion, does it? this is all I was trying to convey.

I never said anyone was below me or my intellect or anything like that, I said that I don't care to read what Polygon has to say comparing fantasy races to real-world ones, nor argue about anything like that. you seem to have taken this personally, and for that I apologize—I did not mean to impugn you as a person at all (until you began the "aha I baited you into replying" schtick, which is always frustrating and an easy indicator that the person doing such things never actually wanted to have a good-faith discussion to begin with). you mistook a couple of remarks I made as personal attacks, or something (even though you didn't post any opinions of your own, so I'm not sure how I was supposed to do that…), and that was not my intent whatsoever.