We also need to recognize that not many people communicate well via long form text-based media, like most posts/comments here on Hubski.

Writing and debate are learned skills, and learning to communicate a clearly structured thought/story via text is not a talent many people have. (See: All of the emails you get at work.)

There are a few of us Hubskis who actually have made our living (and vocation or avocation) from writing professionally - me, KB, veen, etc. - while others may have equally valid points or thoughts, but simply have a hard time putting them into well-structured arguments/stories.

I see many conversations on here devolve specifically because the structure of the person's argument is incorrect or misleading, and might be obscuring a perfectly valid point they are having a hard time articulating.

And I think there is a generational divide with these forms of communications, too. I've been debating online since the mid-1980s, so I just simply have more experience in this form than almost anyone else on here.

That doesn't make me right more often, it simply makes it easier for me to make a fully compelling argument in support of my position more quickly and effectively than someone without that experience. Or, to tear their argument to shreds when they fall into logical fallacies and internal logical inconsistencies in their position.

And getting called out on your lack of skill by an imperious "old person" is never going to go well... which is something I try to remember...

... but is also why I am muted by at least two prolific members of the Hubski community today. (Hangs head.)