[lapcat]

> old modes of thought obsolete

I would say all modes of thought. Again, "Difficulty thinking or concentrating" and "Trouble learning new things".

> A generation which grew up fetishising those things

A generation? One generation? Which generation specifically are you saying fetishized thinking, concentrating, and learning new things?

> Or to quote Socrates on the invention of writing

You have to go back 2500 years to find someone else to dunk on? And do I need to point out that our knowledge of Socrates is based entirely on writing, mostly the writing of Plato, which you quote from and which consists of semi-fictional dialogues, thought experiments, not pure historical transcription?

[arc-in-space]

Please chill a bit.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

[sethammons]

I find nothing unchill in that exchange. Meta comment: people read emotion into things based on their interpretation, sometimes very incorrectly. I have found that assuming best intent moves most things forward. Of course, caveats exist.

One "trick" I try as a writer of sometimes-misunderstood comms is to avoid making statements about a person I am responding to. Instead of "you," I may sub in "someone" and I try to stick to events if possible.

Instead of "the best you can do is pull up an even from 2k years ago" to "an example from 2k years ago, surely we can find more recent events." (As a trite example). Note I moved away from isolating the other person and who they are to more broad language that let's us focus on the idea at hand, not the person who raised it.

</insomnia_thoughts>

[lapcat]

Serious question: do you think that the comment by noosphr was kind, curious, and not snarky?

I would say that my response was actually pretty chill. It could have been much less chill. ;-)