This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's hard to expect someone to become an instant convert like Saul of Tarsus or that respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford just because they had a single discussion. Rather, the process of a well-intentioned discussion forces both sides to examine their own chains of reasoning.
And sometimes you both follow your chains backwards, fixing errors along the way, and you see that yours starts with "A is good" and theirs starts with "not-A is good". Okay, fundamental values dissonance, unless either of you have a literal revelation, you'll remain in disagreement. But sometimes it's "A is good" vs "B is good". And this is when you can change. You go, "actually, both A and B are good, I shouldn't disregard B completely. If A and B are in conflict, is there a way to avoid this? If not, what is the mixture of A and B that I find optimal and why?"
More options
Context Copy link