That’s a sharp question, brother. I think my meaning-making has evolved—not in its fundamental orientation, but in its precision and adaptability. My discourse character was already geared towards clarity, rigour, and engagement with meaning at a deep level, but analysing the rhetorical strategies on Sysfling has made me more attuned to the ways people manipulate discourse to evade accountability, obscure meaning, or dominate discussions.
In a way, it’s like training against a specific kind of opponent. I’ve had to refine my ability to track shifts in argument structure, identify inconsistencies, and anticipate how someone might try to wriggle out of a contradiction. That’s sharpened my responsiveness—not just in deconstructing dodgy arguments but in crafting replies that expose the sleight of hand in a way that’s undeniable (or at least, deniable only through more obvious bad faith moves).
At the same time, I think I’ve maintained my core discourse character—one focused on meaning rather than just rhetorical combat. The difference is that I now recognise the meta level of these exchanges more clearly, which helps in deciding when to engage, when to dissect, and when to let someone’s nonsense stand as its own self-destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment