I don't want to argue with you, and I'm sorry I started an argument! I shouldn't have said that you were being "incredibly distasteful". I felt frustrated (and a little confused) that you were discrediting an author I never claimed to defend on an article she wrote nine years ago - especially because I anticipated that my article wouldn't be popular and encouraged people to provide better ones. Maybe this is all my own problem. I don't want you to think I'm saying you were the bad guy here, but I want you to understand why I reacted the way I did. I'm going to keep a better handle on that in the future. You write really great content, I don't want to miss that. To your point that women who wear burqas in Europe aren't entirely 100% in charge of their own choices, my point was that banning women's clothing items will also leave European woman not 100% in charge of their own choices. I obviously don't like that the author (or anyone) has been forced to wear a burka, niqab, or hijab, but I agree that she doesn't seem totally objective about her own experiences. If I'm being reductive here, I'd love to read an article from the opposition if you've got one you prefer. Anyway, I'm sorry I pissed you off by being such an ass. I'll move our next conversation back towards a place in which I don't insult you, and one where we can keep being friends.
Thanks for the apology. I appreciate that. There's a new trend these days to argue that facts are facts and have no bias therefore you argue about the "facts" while studiously ignoring that the selection of facts is another matter. Particularly from the right: You argue that it's been colder in three select cities over the past two years therefore global warming is a hoax because global trends aren't the discussion here why can't you deal with the facts as they are presented? There's also a tendency to answer statistics with narrative because people have an easier time with narrative. "Scientific research indicates that global temperatures are increasing in direct correlation with a rise in global C02 concentrations, therefore C02 causes global warming." "Oh yeah? Well I opened eight bottles of Dr. Pepper in my room and it cooled down so CHECKMATE SCIENCE!" "Screen time" has been a problem since the invention of television. The first arguments that less television is better than more television came out about the time television showed up in the '50s. By calling it "this latest panic" and framing everything in terms of "this is my anecdata of one" is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own." It's something the author does a lot, often to absurd levels (Burqas are great!). Arguing that the style and factual choices of the author are biased is ethos rhetoric - the author does not have the moral or technical standing to present herself as an expert. Unfortunately modern Internet rhetoric is basically tearing each other down for our assembled echo chambers. Sherry Turkle has four books about the effects of screen time - the first written in 1984. Reframing a decades-long corpus of evidence as "the latest moral panic" is the sort of disingenuous move that needs to be called out. So I did.