[tptacek]

I'm as familiar with the guidelines as anybody on this thread so far (and I'm at least one of the people who suggested the first guideline you cite), I agree with the parent post, and don't see any way in which is contravenes any of these. This is a case where the provenance of the article matters a great deal.

[calderknight]

bpm140's comment is extremely unsubstantive. It contains just vague insinuations. I clicked through to Aporia's contents page and couldn't figure out what bpm140's concern was.

The topic of the article is divisive, so according to the guideline you came up with, comments should get more thoughtful and substantive.

I am sure you can see why I reached the conclusion that bpm140 was not familiar with the guideline.

There's a chance I'm missing something here and, if so, I would love you to help me out by pointing it out.

[tptacek]

I'm not saying you have to find it persuasive. I agree with them, you don't have to. But the guidelines don't demand that they say more than that, especially when the thread already makes it pretty clear where they're coming from.

[calderknight]

Sorry, I'm not following. What is the substance of bpm's comment, and where is the thoughtfulness? According to your guideline it needs plenty of both, but I see none of either.

[1123581321]

Could someone explain? I’m unfamiliar with the publication. Asking sincerely.

[sgift]

After reading the comments here I first looked up the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard (there's also one for the second author, his brother). And then I took a look at the headlines here: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/archive?sort=new

At least for me that speaks for itself and supports what is written in this thread.

[squarefoot]

As someone who had one psychiatrist and two psychologists in his family, and having been myself in (very effective) treatment years ago, every time I read nonsense like that I immediately smell malice, this also because the vast documentation I read about Scientology during the late 90s and early 2K, which for those living under a rock, are among the most prominent enemies of psychology and psychiatry. The above link are eye openers; this at first seems a rather different case from cult scammers, as the guy is rather a far right extremist with the same mindset of antivaxers and Q-anon conspiracy theorists, ie someone who should ask for treatment himself, but at the end of the day it's just another case of someone with mental troubles who hates professionals whose job is to cure those problems.

[1123581321]

Thanks.

[Arn_Thor]

At a glance it is defending its own definition of "great replacement" theory (i.e. it's a conspiracy by the left to cause the decline of the white population, but you know Aporia is legitimate and reasonable because they don't claim it's all orchestrated by the Jews--instead it's the "Elites"), lambasting diversity as some kind of "scam", and even espousing literal racism. Not even the dog whistling kind.

[colechristensen]

In this case, explain your dismissal. That’s it. Nothing wrong with having that opinion but don’t express it without actually explaining it.