How dare you link me your posts!

I'm an original thinker, with unique thoughts that you haven't heard 100 times before!

(This is a cookie-cutter response post to the cookie-cutter tac of refusing to read anything linked).

You’re being linked to a post precisely because you did NOT present something new. 99.9% of people do not have genuine novel arguments, ideas, knowledge, and so it’s extremely unlikely that you actually had anything new to say. In all likelihood, you were actually responding to my twitter posts, so just pretend this is a long twitter post if it makes you feel better.

“A substack article is not a source” - a piece of paper isn’t a source either, yet people cite things in books all the time. The format is not the argument. An argument can be made by arranging pieces of poop in cuneiform, and the argument can be correct.

“I don’t have time to read that shit” - If I’m linking you an article, it’s quite clear that you DO have time to read that, as you have likely spent several hours arguing on twitter, spending a great deal of time crafting replies.

“I’m not gonna read some bad-ist shite” - You read, listen to, and converse with bad-ists all the time. You do not have porcelain ears, you aren’t “offended” (that’s not a thing), you’re simply evading having to listen to people who disagree with you in their full measure because the spectre that the dominant beliefs at your place and time in history being wrong, just as they were in all prior places and times (because their formation are a function of specific circumstances) - is galling to you.

“You’re citing bad-ist people to promote bad-ism. You can only cite good-ist people!” - Obviously, the kinds of people who say things that uphold bad-ism, will tend toward being a bad-ist themselves. You can rephrase “good-ist” to “reputable” (a shell-game as no bad-ist will never be “reputable” until they’ve won), though clearly you’re aware that this attitude was bogus at all times in the past, yet imagine it to be so now? I.e. the “reputable” things in 1950 are not “reputable” now, therefore this standard cannot be taken as self-evident.

Perhaps you were lucky enough to live at the place and time in human history that just happens to get all the big questions right. But this can’t be done by self-evidently citing journos or what you imagine to be “academic consensus” (as relayed to you by journos).

There’s also likely some circular emotionality. “I’m going to be told that bad-ism is actually good-ism? And on top of that, the person telling me that bad-ism is correct is himself bad-ist scum!? F that!”.

Also, please don’t try to fabricate some tedious novelty-take just for the sake of saying something that hasn’t already been addressed. You’re not fooling yourself or me, it’s just a song and dance that wastes everyone’s time.

What you genuinely believe is, 99.9% chance, cookie-cutter, and thus a cookie-cutter response will work just fine.