One of the hardest things to do on this board is to offer genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes. I suppose that, as a general rule, its good to steer away from that, as more often than not, its taken as some sort of personal attack.

You should know that just like I have familiarity with you

I appreciate you sharing your view here, but a) frankly, I'm not that familiar with your postings, probably because they focus on topics I don't have much interest in (just guessing), and b) I don't accept the premise here: that "you should know my work because I know your work".

I hope you don't feel slighted, but I think that's outside my control. While I did recognize your tag to some extent, you aren't quite familiar (to me).

I don't mind you being frank, but I don't see (or agree) that "it is a shitty approach" for me to frankly express that it seems to me you are (were) focusing more on your subjective reactions to the situation than on actual facts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the feedback (aka my impression) was not issued in order to achieve an ad hominem attack or to somehow denigrate you, win brownie points, or achieve some sort of (useless) argument victory.

I'm not interested in any of those.

But what else is one to conclude? I didn't approach your post and comments based on any back knowledge of your track record, but simply on what was written:

"85% of the world's refugees are muslim", and "not one of the muslim countries are taking in refugees"

Not only did you not post sauce, the claims were very quickly refuted by publicly available sources. So, without any sauce on your side, is it unreasonable to wonder why these claims were made?

"roughly 10 years we went from 30 million people to 40 million"

Again, very easily refuted using publicly available sources. Approximately an increase of 5 million (I think the figure was 5.5) in Canadian population.

"I use the terms 'refugee' and 'immigrant' interchangeably"

My dad was not a refugee, but he was an immigrant (to my country).

Do you think its "a shitty approach" to call in to question the very basic claims you continued to make (without posting any sauce)?

In my view, there is a real problem on this board (notwithstanding that this board is a great board compared to most of what else is out there) that too many of us simply and blithely (it appears) just accept anything posted in headlines and off hand comments without even questioning the facts or the veracity of the claims.

Is it wrong or "shitty" to question claims? I don't think so, personally. Is it wrong or "shitty" to question whether someone is more focused on their emotional reactions than on facts or accuracy? Again, I don't think so.

The "truth community" has been under serious attack for quite some time. When the Great Awakening began, people were a lot more concerned (imo) about ferreting out the truth and the facts, and avoiding the established group think. Now, however, it appears that a vast number of so-called awakened (not just here on this board, but out there in the wild) simply gravitate towards whatever narratives (claims) fit into their particular biases or which make them feel comfortable in their emotional state.

Reflecting on how we process information internally (i.e. what role our emotions play vs critical thinking approaches) is an important, if not critical, theme, imo.

who should be helping each other.

So...... we help each other by NOT asking or questioning claims, NOT refuting them when available evidence contradicts them, and by applying NO critical thinking in regards to how we, collectively, and individually, approach the information we are dealing in?

(And by information, i mean, anything that is written, factual, opinion, or otherwise).

If you choose to continue to scold me like a teacher to student for "playing fast and lose" I will just block you because you are not offering a humble opinion whatsoever! Its attacking, arrogant and not helpful. You should do better than that.

"scold me like a teacher" - a completely subjective interpretation you have chosen to adopt.

"I will just block you" - a) blocking someone on the board simply means they cannot direct message you; it does not remove any of my content from the feed, which is universal (you'll still see it) and b) so what? I really do not care if you 'block me' or read my content or not. Your choice here does not affect my desire to contribute to the board, or the reasons I do it.

"you are not offering a humble opinion" - a completely subjective opinion, one you are welcome to, but not one that I share.

I would welcome discussion with you as peers

If you were really interacting with me as a peer, I think you would appreciate frank feedback, shared impressions (delivered with no intent to achieve some sort of ego boost or rhetorical victory for brownies points) and being challenged in your claims.

It seems like you want some sort of validation, and feel put out because I haven't delivered it to you. Because I questioned or refuted your claims, and then had the temerity to suggest you are more focused on (your subjective views) than on the facts.

I AM appreciative that you took the time and effort to reply. And to share your views. But, on multiple points, I simply do not agree, although I do think your expressed impressions re: my tone, are something I should really think about.

I'd also like to stress one thing: I think its good to give feedback, if done in good faith. However, you do not get to decide if something someone writes is "not ... a humble opinion" or "Its attacking, arrogant".

If you tell me that this is how it comes across to you, I can easily consider that and reflect. And, if I find that feedback useful or helpful, I can take it on board and make of it what I will. But just because that is YOUR view and impression, does not make it so.

I do not think my approach to your post and comments was "shitty" or that I am "not having a humble opinion" or that I'm attacking you.

I can certainly be arrogant, or come across as arrogant (actually I try to work very hard on humility as a general life principle) and it might be fair to say that my tone came across as a bit arrogant and/or even condescending; its a personal flaw I constantly run into ESPECIALLY when attempting to offer aforementioned "genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes".

But I also think that, as a peer, you would welcome the criticism(s), or at least address it, and show where it is wrong, or right, rather than purely focusing on how it is delivered.

Example: how exactly where your 3 / 4 primary claims not false? (refugee stats, country stats, pop. stats and the meaning of words)

And if they are wildly inaccurate (as I suggested), why?

I'll conclude by commenting that good communication is rarely easily accomplished. If it is, its is often because two (or more) people's particular ego-centric agendas coincide, for a time.

Accomplishing solid, good communication often requires a back and forth, or working to find a common signal and common wavelength. I think so far we've uncovered that our two wavelengths are at odds, to some extent. Where we go from here is a choice.

I'm happy to continue the dialog, but only if we can maturely give facts their due role, and discuss them, and then share feedback in good faith, while acknowledging that 'my subjective impressions' do NOT equal facts, or necessarily correlate to reality.

In other words, thanks for engaging. Apologies if I came across as haughty or arrogant. It was not intentional, and any feedback (or impressions) I have offered were offered in good faith. Also, I'll continue to question or call out claims by anyone that I think are unfounded, inaccurate, worth questioning, or which simply get gobbled up due to bias confirmation and other motivations. I'll also continue to offer critiques of HOW we, collectively and individually, handle the information we do, on the board.

To quote Q: "You are the news now. Handle w/ care."

(q3616) (for me, one of the most important Q drops....)

(edits: minor edits to smooth the text)