Maybe. By your own subtitle, your aim is to "understand comments." With that in mind, let's dissect your comment: "NO." What does that comment say, really (in a subtextual sense)? To me, it says that you hold a firm opposition to the policy, and that you're using a thinly veiled rhetoric to express solidarity with a like-minded bloc, probably ideologically pro-labor liberals. The reaction comment, "Quality input there..." was either a lack of understanding of the message, a rejection of it, or, more probably, an indictment of the device itself that is independent of the position (edit: after reading through the thread, I see that Quatrarius has already addressed this point, and my supposition is correct). That is, the user was attempting to get you to recognize that all you're doing is reinforcing the echo chamber of anti TPP sentiment without stating an argument against it. Perhaps it was done without a lot of tact. I suppose where Quatrarius was disappointed is that your comment seemed to be encouraging this place to become part of the vast liberal echo chamber that is many corners of the Internet (pure speculation on my part). If you have an argument for or against TPP, then make it. But when you take a side for the sake of being part of a movement, people look suspiciously on it. Bear in mind I'm not accusing you of being uneducated on the issue. I have no idea what your interest or knowledge on the subject is. What I do know is that you can only be judged by what you put into the world, and that when the output is crap, people assume the input is, too. So, my point is that while dissecting how you could have responded may be a worth while exercise, it also may be completely avoidable if you speak more precisely from the outset, or at the very least qualify yourself when challenged. Truth >>> Politeness....I don't think this has to be framed in opposition to this post and its discussion.
Right. I meant that, given what has happened, two possible responses emerge: analyzing the situation, and adding to my original comment. Both are instructive. Of course dissection of possible responses isn't necessary when one responds appropriately the first time around. But I didn't. In any case, I have no intention of defending my original comment. Of course my response to Quatrarius's criticism of it was in self-defense, but that was before this discussion. I intended the comment as an expression of emotion, and spoke with little regard for the effects it would have on the community (e.g. "encouraging this place to become part of the vast liberal echo chamber that is many corners of the Internet"), and for that I apologize. Had a great discussion with my Physics teacher about this today. He pointed out how hollow the phrase "I respect your opinion" is. What the fuck does it even mean? The only action it seems to foreshadow is cessation of argument, which has little to do with respect and much more to do with the choice to gloss over differences of opinion. And even if respecting an opinion is a meaningful act, why would I want you to do it? My opinion is a personal belief. It means nothing outside of my subjective experience, so your assessment of it is necessarily meaningless. I would much rather you respect the facts. (This is especially important when debating, e.g., anti-vaxxers, creationists and the like.) Anyway, sorry for the tangent.So, my point is that while dissecting how you could have responded may be a worth while exercise, it also may be completely avoidable if you speak more precisely from the outset, or at the very least qualify yourself when challenged.
Truth >>> Politeness.
Perhaps "I respect your opinion" is a short form for "Let's agree to disagree for now, since given the available information at this moment and the available time and energy for this topic at this moment, I can't go any further right now, but note: I do not hold any animosity towards you for differing from me. Moving on..." Please ask your physics teacher.