• Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    “No thank you”

    Would be better here. All relevant information in the letter would be implied.

    If you’re going to show off writing skills, actually say something useful

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          It’s a good question if you’re unfamiliar with this quote.

          Once you get to a certain depth of vocabulary, and basic level of skill in writing, it’s easy to write a lot of text.

          You can sort of “talk around” your central point, adding reams and reams of text, sketching out your point in a crude outline, eventually arriving at a complete picture or just stupefying your audience into submission.

          This kind of communication is evidence of “thinking out loud,” where you know the vibe of what you’re trying to say, but figure out your logic at the same time as you’re saying/writing it.

          Especially in writing, this would be considered a first draft. If you take the time to think about what you’re trying to say then you can often refine/reduce your message to a more respectful length (a shorter one).

          tl;dr easy say lot meh, hard say little good

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Ahh, yes I’ve been to uni too. It’s not gotten me much faster at writing large amounts of text. But I do have to agree it’s become very easy.

            Isn’t this more of a lack of energy rather than time? Or perhaps just lazyness?

            • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              I suppose that depends on one’s writing process.

              For my part, I usually end up deleting needless words or clichés on a second pass.

                • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I guess you get some thoughtfulness and economy of words kind of for free them. Reminds me of how (I think it was him) Edgar Allan Poe would write with slow-to-dry ink, so he would have to take his time when writing.

        • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          It is a paradox, but the implication is that bottling up your feelings consumes more of your time then taking the time to properly vent them.

    • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m guessing the point wasn’t to express mere disinterest, but active resentment of the opposing viewpoint: “Not only have I no desire to converse with you, which may be taken as a hesitation to engage with your views, but I believe such a conversation to be utterly worthless because I despise your entire world view” with a dash of “You’re a bigot and I want nothing to do with your kind.”

      “No thank you” just doesn’t drive that home.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Where does the motivation to drive that home come from, isn’t this just a difference in opinion?

            • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              That doesn’t preclude taking a moment to write such a letter.

              If anything, it serves to challenge the pretense of dignified and harmless “opinions” that fascists like to leverage. I’d argue that is much more productive than the way discourse has occasionally evaded calling out the cruel, sadistic, violent, bigoted assholes and enemies of human progress and dignity as just that.

              As Russel notes, there is no reasonable discussion to be had with someone so openly endorsing violence beyond reason, whose entire worldview is so diametrically opposed that there is no common ground to found a discussion on in the first place.

              Giving fascists the “Eh, just opinions” benefit normalises their hateful views as permissible. For anyone valuing freedom, tolerance, progress and justice, opposing these rhetorics is not just sensible, but even crucial to combat the spread of this ideological cancer.

              There can be no peaceful disagreement with an ideology that, given the chance, will suppress all disagreement violently.