> it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed
As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question:
>>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues".
IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer.
> edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with.
So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important.
In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation.
I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.
As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question:
>>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues".
IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer.
> edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with.
So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important.
In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation.
I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.