this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
663 points (89.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
29786 readers
559 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You understand that idiom, but not 'go on, make my day?' Even when it's patiently explained to you?
What?
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/2673505
You didn't say "go on, make my day" there. That's a lie. That phrase doesn't even appear. What a bizarre thing to lie about when anyone can just look.
It's in semiquotes because it's paraphrasing. Jesus. This level of rigid demand makes sense if you're on the spectrum or ESL or something - otherwise, what the fuck?
I said 'Go on, tell me this one's synecdoche.' (Again: paraphrasing.) You said 'It is synecdoche, though.' I said 'Correct. They both are.' And then you started litigating like I'd insulted you, or contradicted myself. Even when I directly paraphrased what you wrote, to agree with it.
You missed a common idiom - had it laid out for you in detail - repeatedly took offense over nothing - and I'm guessing reported it. So I'm a little surprised to see you elsewhere in my replies, frustrated at overzealous moderation, when it's your indirect implications in question.
You're wrong about those too, by the way. "Turbulent priest" comments are a call to violence. That line was prototypical stochastic terrorism. Not directly saying "kill that prick" - but clearly communicating that you'd like that prick killed. Even in the twelfth century people recognized this was a flimsy excuse.
You're really worked up about this, but you might notice that the moderator also didn't understand your "common idiom" and told you to explain yourself or shut up. Funny how you left that part out.
I did explain myself. That's why I'm asking: what the fuck?
What was I supposed to do differently, here? What on Earth did you expect? Is there any sequence of words where you'd go, 'oh, sure, I get it?'
For god's sake, I didn't leave it out, it's why I said I assume you reported it. It's the whole reason we're having this conversation. You don't get to leave these short-ass replies and pretend proper discourse requires all possible details to be covered.
I don't expect anything. You're the one attacking me for not supposedly not knowing a phrase which you then said wasn't the phrase I didn't know. Much like in the other thread, you're not making much sense, but you are needlessly aggressive. I have very little patience left for it and will block you if it continues.
It's not an attack. It's the explanation you asked for!
What else could you want?
Again, I don't want anything. You're the one who attacked me.
I also didn't ask for an explanation.
It's still not an attack. If you just keep assuming everything someone says to you is a personal affront, nothing they say matters. The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer. You'll just twist it all into veiled insults.
Even when - as in that linked thread - you fucking plainly expressed confusion, and had it politely dispelled.
You maintained your initial conclusion in spite of that. I am now asking: what the fuck was I supposed to say, instead? What did you want out of that interaction? Was there any combination of words in the English language, that would have satisfied you, or does any reply get labeled as "bitching?"
Sure. This isn't an attack. Totally not insulting.
It was calling me stupid about something that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Maybe you need to work on your interpersonal skills if you think that isn't an attack.
Stupid is an essentialist insult. I'm describing behavior. Not knowing something is fine. Being offended by the explanation is baffling.
You demonstrably expected an explanation for what I said. Which I gave. And that somehow made you act even more hostile and defensive.
Third time: what else am I supposed to say?
If there is some way to deal with this, that you would not consider degrading - what is it?
if there is no way someone can question your comments, that you wouldn't consider a personal insult - how would anyone communicate with you?
Deal with what? You're the only one here who gives a shit about this.
Says user incensed by an alleged attack.
You don't know what you want.
Please quote me being 'incensed' and explain how you could figure out my emotional state from text. This should be interesting.
I couldn't prove the sky is blue, if you're going to be hostile to any text under my username.
You are complaining about me insulting you. Which never happened. Substitute whatever summary of that is dry enough; that is the problem and I am asking you what else you wanted.
Jesus Christ, take yes for an answer.
Waiting for that quote.
No, you aren't. That's the problem. You could just hit Show Context a few times, and see what I'm talking about, where you scoffed at the suggestion I hadn't insulted you. Or you could remember when you wrote that, like, an hour ago. But you're making extremely specific demands as if the exact word I used must be the exact word you used, or else I'm completely wrong about everything.
How dare I say you say I said a thing, just because that's plainly what happened.
More to the point - how dare I project any sort of internal state onto you, in this discussion of how you have done exactly that to me.
I am telling you there was no insult in answering your comments directly and accurately. You cannot believe that. And that inability is somehow my fault. Aaand asking how I could do better is just further insult, and also my fault.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
I guess you lied when you said I was incensed. I wonder why you lied?
This is now weak trolling.
Insulting me won't make a lie true. Sorry. If you didn't lie, you can quote me. But I'm pretty sure you lied.
'You are not being intellectually honest.'
'When did I say that?'
'Incorrect.'
Again, because I can't trust you to recognize the concept: paraphrasing.
Nope. You said I was incensed. But you had no evidence to that effect. It was a lie. That's okay, lots of people lie.
Like you saying I insulted you?
Trying to change the subject will not make your lie true either, sorry.
It's the root subject. It's the thing you were so not-incensed about.
That's great, but I'm really only interested in talking about your lie. You're welcome to explain why you lied if you ever admit to it. I'll be interested in that. Otherwise, I'm just going to continue to mostly ignore anything else you have to say. Especially the long posts. Not going to read those at all. Not when they could be lies too.
Hypocrisy, then. Grand.
Worthless.
That's not about your lie.
Right, because you're the protagonist of reality. Your lies don't count. Even if they're to a mod.
But someone saying you were offended by an imaginary insult, well, stop the presses.
Didn't read that. In fact, I'm just not planning on reading anything else from you and will respond to all future posts with the word 'strawberry.' That should amuse me.