It's actually more contrusctive to outline what the post you both are replying to you don't like and more specifically why?

▲

timr 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's actually more contrusctive to outline what the post you both are replying to you don't like and more specifically why?

Come on. I wrote a multi-paragraph post with an argument (I am the OP), and the parent wrote: "what the fuck" in response.

Reply to him and ask him what he thinks is so offensive, don't ask me to make an intellectual rebuttal. I honestly shouldn't have responded at all, but I couldn't resist because of the commenter's profile. It's just so common to see someone in science who won't even engage with an argument like mine, and dismisses it with profanity/insults.

▲

Avicebron 16 hours ago | parent [-]

My bad, on mobile, I think your stance deserves a more thoughtful critique.

Source: was in academia for a bit post 2010 and pre-2024, there was some seriously weird unscientific stuff being peddled.

	▲	estearum 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Note: There is always some seriously weird unscientific stuff being peddled literally all through the entire course of scientific history. Did you not study the history of science at all during your jaunt through academia? Not to say we need to just lay down and accept the badness, but it's total nonsense to suggest that your exposure to some badness is an indictment of the enterprise.