Is this a defensive reaction? Did you feel like I was challenging your knowledge on the topic?

No, you were a dick.

See, here we were, having a useful discussion about chemical weapons, history and politics and YOU throw down with:

How is today a good day? Yay Karl Rove is to blame, who gives a shit?

Isn't discussion about death and suffering in regards to chemical weapons still on topic with politics? That being said, discussions in general always evolve organically, so saying I went off on a tangent is saying that yes we are in fact having a discussion. You were having a discussion about the more in depth political stuff with mk and I didn't interrupt that. I formed a new comment on the base level of this thread. I can't imagine having a conversation in person and having someone start yelling "off-topic" and being angry like this, it's kind of strange to be honest.

Way to make it about me. Way to go off on a tangent. The discussion here is Karl Rove. We can take as a base assumption that chemical weapons are bad, suffering is bad, and the Iraq War was a tragedy. We can even solve by inspection that all that shit is steady state, as in, has not changed.

Still with me?

What has changed, the only delta in the equation, is "blame for Karl Rove."

Therefore, in a long long run of terrible news, finally some good stuff: There's ample blowback for one of the assholes that caused the misfortune in the first place.

Here's where my ignorance comes in, and maybe I wasn't clear on where my ignorance lied. This is the first time I have heard about this issue, period. So this entire thing is news to me. I don't always have time to be on Hubski all day every day and keep up with the news all the time, so I miss things. I don't watch the media, I tend to like to get aggregate data because I work way too much (it's unhealthy, and I shouldn't). So my ignorance lies in the entire subject. I didn't know the delta was Karl Rove, in fact, I didn't know there was a delta at all. I found that video after doing a search after seeing your post, so I decided to be helpful and post it. The fact that this whole thing came up this week doesn't really seem like something huge I missed, though. I caught it within a week of it being public, that's better than most people.

As far as I can see, what you quoted didn't in fact make it about you at all. BUT, I re-read my initial post and found this particular sentence:

If you're really concerned about Karl Rove over this story then you are just as obsessed about politics and getting your agenda pushed as Rove himself.

THAT sentence did make it about you, and was completely out of line and I apologize for THAT statement. The rest I don't see as negative, really. Most of it was just a statement of my opinion on the issue. If you take offense to my use of language like "who gives a shit?", I say that stuff to my closest friends and family. It's just the way I talk and phrase things.

See, I have a problem (as in a personal problem, not a grudge problem; I think being clear about what I'm saying right now is extremely important) with internet discussions as a whole sometimes, especially in regards to politics. I tend to get wrapped up emotionally on a topic and then I say stupid things like that statement I just quoted before thinking it through.

I think we should both try to learn from this experience. I will attempt to not make dumb sentences like the above, but there's a really really important thing that you can take from this that I hope you do. There are tons of people that are ignorant about politics at levels that exceed mine. These are 99% of the population, and a large portion of them vote in elections. Being angry at them doesn't actually improve the situation even if they say dumb or ignorant things. It is important for people with large amounts of knowledge on these subjects like yourself to educate the masses on these things, not be angry at them. You aren't going to be able to improve things if all you do is scream at the people who are directly responsible for electing people to fix these problems.

So don't pretend to know my motives, don't pretend to know my level of knowledge and don't pick a fight with me just so you can feel self-righteous. If the next comment isn't an apology, my next move is a muting.

I'm not sure where I picked a fight, I simply made a fleeting statement of ignorance and I apologize for that. I'm trying to help you understand this from my perspective, not making myself seem self-righteous (I never would have expected admitting to ignorance would lead to an accusation of self-righteousness). Seeing things from other people's perspectives are what discussions are for. If a person has any other motives than seeing other people's perspectives, it's not a discussion, it's a speech. Discussions add flavor to our opinions and help us become better people. Everyone has room for growth, and that's why we all have discussions every day.

Apologize for being a dick. Not, " I'll apologize if I really was being a dick." You really were.

Why would you want someone to apologize for being a dick without knowing why they were being a dick? Shouldn't that improve the community if they learn from their mistakes, rather than just a simple authoritative "I'm sorry", and retreating into themselves trying to figure it out without bettering themselves, never knowing what it was they did? How does that better the community?