IanIronwood, on John Scalzi's blog The Whatever, November 20, 2012:
- "But note you didn't address a single one of my arguments, which I put forth rationally and reasonably without name-calling. I think that's pretty telling, John."
Ian Ironwood had just posted a long, completely batshit comment in the thread of a post Scalzi wrote about men who call him a "beta male." Scalzi replied:
Every time you write here, stupid and sexist just falls out of your fingertips, man. You need to quit it.
- I’m going to leave it there as a cogent example of? exactly? what I wrote about, actually. It’s pretty much perfect. Although I don’t suggest others engage with it.
In that context, "rationally and reasonably" meant "I liked the ideas in it" and "It made sense to me." It didn't make sense to anyone else, and they said so, but IanIronwood wasn't taking that into account.
"Without namecalling" is of course the favorite rule invoked by people who don't really understand how language works. "Described in many words, or described indirectly" = good, no matter what they're saying. "Described in one or two words" = bad, namecalling, no matter how accurate or relevant it is.
"I think that's pretty telling" means "I believe that when people throw up their hands and walk away, it means I've won the argument."
- Ian Ironwood:
“But note you didn’t address a single one of my arguments”
Sure I did, when I noted they were stupid and sexist. That’s the whole of what your “arguments” rated. I thought that was obvious. Concision is our friend.
(It’s not namecalling to label your writing stupid and sexist, incidentally; another thing you’ve gotten wrong.)
After that, IanIronwood fell back on "The Lurkers Support Me in Email" --
I’ve had dozens of men come across your posts and end up at my blog because they agree more with me than with you — or at least want to have an intelligent discussion about how perhaps feminism isn’t the social utopia it’s made out to be.