That's not it. I know this forum (like most forums online) are a sesspool of hatred but I'm not trying to be insulting for the sake of it. This is a legitimate attempt at
constructive criticism in order to aid a good discussion.
I think you're sometimes quite poor in discussions. I understand that certain topics are complex and contain so many facets your mind starts jumping from point to point. You delve into one aspect but can't finish it right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and go off into something else but you can't finish that point right away because you need to highlight one specific aspect of that point and it continues on and on. If you talk long enough eventually you'll be able to finish every point though.
Being able to translate that well is an artform. And I don't just mean from spoken words to written words, I mean from your mind to spoken words. Not many people are good at it. Most people are bad at it. Inattention and laziness of the reader definitely plays a roll and you'll never get certain people to read what you're saying once it exceeds two paragraphs. But seeing as how those people won't read it regardless of the quality of what you're saying/writing you need to write for those that will read it. And once you enter that field, it's entirely on you to translate it well.
I also tend to write long posts. You can't condense complex issues into two or three paragraphs without being superficial and vague. What I've just said a lot of people would condense to two or three sentences. They wouldn't bother with a lot of what I said. So I get it.
But there's a difference between delving into subjects and being off-topic. There's a difference between expanding the discussion and ignoring what has been said in order to hold a monologue about things that have been on your mind that are distantly related to the topic (or hold the topic in the rear view mirror as you put it). There is no genuine back and forth and you fail to go into details on where you disagree. Your actual counter-arguments are quite short and inconcise while the other (off-topic) points you introduce are quite lengthy. It should at the very least be the other way around or everything should be lengthy and concise.
You're also unnecessarily irate and seemingly suspicious of peoples' motivations. It really doesn't make for good conservation. I agree with rebeccablack's observation that you probably feel like you win every argument. It's regretful that that sometimes seems to be your goal. In a good argument both parties win. Rational discussions are fun to have. You can gain knowledge (even if it's just a view into another person's mind and/or train of thought) and insight. You should aim to 'win' the argument but only in the sense that you're trying to prove your point as well as you can. Getting to the truth and having a good discussion is the real goal. Losing in a rational discussion is always better than winning in a verbal shit-throwing contest.
Like I said, you're a smart and knowledgeable guy but you're doing a lot of things wrong. If you'd correct those (and I think learn more about human psychology away from political issues because the two tend to clouded) you could communicate your thoughts and points significantly better and would give people more reason to actually listen to you. I also think you'd get a lot more out of it because it must be frustrating to be knowledgeable and have an intelligent and inquisitive mind but not have any real peers (I'm only speaking in terms of what I see on this forum. I'm not pretending to know anything about you in real life). Even if you're 100% right you can still fail to provide proper arguments and hold a good discussion. Good discussions are good.
(See... long posts
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] )