That is the most pretentious way of saying “nuh-uh” I’ve read today. Feel free to continue your string of pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandizing bullshit, but don’t expect me to clap for you.
Well, you can sit there and whine, complain and be a dick all you want to, or you can take this as an opportunity to educate other people toward your way of thinking. Clearly you’ve already decided to do the former.
On the off chance that you’re actually open to hearing any kind of criticism, sure:
You made a post on a small forum about an objectively obscure topic, seemingly with the expectation that people would understand an acronym for that obscure topic.
Numerous comments essentially asked “what the fuck does that even mean?”
When faced with an opportunity to introduce more people to this obscure topic with some modicum of grace, you instead made what appeared to be a sarcastic, disparaging comment that people should obviously just know what you’re talking about.
When called out for #3, you decided that everyone in this thread clearly hated the obscure topic that none of them had even heard of, rather than realizing that people reacted poorly to your poorly disguised arrogance and pretentious comments.
Okay, let me spell this out to you like you are a 4-year-old:
I made a Lemmy post asking what people are going to do for NaNoWriMo.
The post was treated derisively as most people already know what it is and don’t like it, and the rest genuinely didn’t know what it is.
Other people in the thread corrected them.
One person decided to catch attitude with me about it and I promptly told them where to stuff it.
You didn’t like that and started arguing with me.
.
And you’re doing this because you think I’m upset other people don’t like NaNoWriMo or me, and you don’t understand I don’t care if they do or not.
They have the right to like or hate whatever the fuck they want. I can’t make people like NaNoWriMo and I don’t want to make people like something I like. That’s their prerogative. As a fellow human being who shares this Earth with 8 billion other motherfuckers, I’m fine with that.
What I’m not fine with is the notion that I have to be a doormat and let people walk all over me to appease your sensibilities, because you misunderstand the point of the thread.
This thread is not for converting people to the ways of NaNoWriMo. I specifically was looking for other people who already know about it and were going to participate.
I really, really don’t know how to make this clearer to you than it already is. It’s on you if you refuse to listen and it’s pretty apparent that refusing to listen is something that you’re good at.
Sure lil buddy, whatever you say. Have fun being an overly verbose, abrasive dickwad and thinking that it somehow makes you an intellectual, that’ll show people not to “catch attitude with you.”
And you can be an oversensitive, overbearing, overly offended concern troll with nothing better to do with your life than get mad at someone because you misinterpreted a situation and are too arrogant to admit you were wrong, but it won’t make you sound any less dumb.
That’ll sure show me not to assert myself when someone is being toxic in my own thread for no reason. 🙄
Oh how adorable, you followed me all the way here from a whole separate post just to cause trouble. And you even came up with an excuse to give you plausible deniability a whole half-hour after you first chimed in when you found other people who are purposefully derailing the thread because they have an axe to grind, and joined in.
I’m… actually quite touched. I didn’t know I had fans.
Right? This dude can’t comprehend that he’s the problem here, not a writing challenge/competition. Reminds me of a saying “If it smells like shit everywhere you go, check your shoe”
Well, that troll sure got what he wanted, didn’t he? You’re so hopped up on your anger and the smell of your own shit that you can’t even see that the guy you’re defending clearly already knew what NaNoWriMo was. You just created an image in your mind of a raging lolcow who can’t take criticism and can’t see that you’re actually looking in the mirror.
But hey, you can have fun being an arrogant, ignorant blowhard who is too angry to listen to reason, or you can calm down for five seconds and actually listen to what you’re told. Your choice. 🤷
EDIT: Oh lol, the troll even went and admitted it:
Well, you still gonna sit there smelling your own farts, or are you actually going to stop and think about what’s actually happening in the thread?
Holy fucking shit, you actually are people who are so immature and vengeful over arguments on the internet that you chose to derail a NaNoWriMo thread because you have beef with me personally.
Because you actually and unironically are grown-ass adults who want to gang up on someone to get revenge over the internet. Over internet arguments
Because that is the grown-up response, am I right? 😆
Don’t actually stop. This is fucking hilarious.
I tell people like you to grow up for a reason, and this is precisely that reason. Touch. Grass.
Eh I don’t really like the idea of banning people. It happens to me a lot too.
Just had a big argument with him in another thread, said “fuck this” and went to find new content, landed here, there’s some dude being a total dick and it’s him!
It’s like saying “fuck Cleveland I’m outta here!” then hauling ass on the interstate for hours just to roll right back into Cleveland again. Damn.
What I’d like to do is help him, but I’m not sure if it’s possible online. In person I’d just go nonverbal and express peaceful vibes until we could talk, but online all we have is words. There’s no nonverbal interaction. To way to cooperate on anything that isn’t conversational.
That’s my thinking on it, but I just smoked and I’m getting rambly.
Basically I think respect is established nomverbally and then that enables conversations where people respectfully disagree with one another. Like I don’t care if you don’t agree with my ethical ideas as long as your muscles are relaxed and your tone of voice isn’t threatening violence on me. I like to have long detailed debates with my friends.
But if you’ve got no tone of voice or body language to establish that the frame is peaceful, the only thing you have is the content of the words.
Honestly, and I’m just thinking this now, I bet that’s the root of the intergenerational difference in … uh … assumed state of conflict inherent to a conversation.
So me and the other middle aged people grew up in a world where aside from the super slow and far removed from normal “pen pal” thing, you communicated with people in physical spaces: either directly there or at least with a broad spectrum sound signal of a phone call. You get emotional data on a voice call.
But now we’ve got people who grew up with social media. In social media, you can have conversations that are only words. No time except what you can glean from word content. Not just essays and stories published, but conversations. Entirely word-based conversations, devoid of accompanying sensory experience of the conversational partner, are a new thing in human experience.
And in a text-only conversation, if you want to establish a framing relationship with the conversational partner, it needs to be done via the words.
And here’s where the generational gap comes in. It’s a difference in how we implicitly model a friendly debate:
Me and the other old fogies’ model of a friendly debate:
Nonverbal signals saying: “Things are chill, we’re friends, I respect you”
Word content saying: “I disagree with you and intend to argue against your claims”
The youngins’ model of a friendly debate is:
Word content saying: “Things are chill, we’re friends, I respect you”
Word content saying: “I disagree with you and intend to argue against your claims”
We old fogies don’t need that word content signal online because we had years of face to face interaction, so our default model of a verbal disagreement is that it’s friends respectfully disagreeing.
In our pre-internet world, all of the debates were friendly debates because non-friendly debates escalated to violence. So in all the cases where the debating continued, it happened in a peaceful manner. Therefore the old fogie, pre-internet implicit belief is “debate is friendly”.
But text-only debates can be nasty without escalating (transforming) into physical conflict, and therefore the fact of a continuing debate wasn’t a solid indicator of friendly context.
So these kids need, and provide each other with, explicit respect signals. For them it is not to be assumed.
For us, it is to be assumed that unless there’s an explicit indicator otherwise, debates are friendly.
That is the most pretentious way of saying “nuh-uh” I’ve read today. Feel free to continue your string of pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandizing bullshit, but don’t expect me to clap for you.
Well, you can sit there and whine, complain and be a dick all you want to, or you can take this as an opportunity to educate other people toward your way of thinking. Clearly you’ve already decided to do the former.
On the off chance that you’re actually open to hearing any kind of criticism, sure:
Okay, let me spell this out to you like you are a 4-year-old:
I made a Lemmy post asking what people are going to do for NaNoWriMo.
The post was treated derisively as most people already know what it is and don’t like it, and the rest genuinely didn’t know what it is.
Other people in the thread corrected them.
One person decided to catch attitude with me about it and I promptly told them where to stuff it.
You didn’t like that and started arguing with me.
.
And you’re doing this because you think I’m upset other people don’t like NaNoWriMo or me, and you don’t understand I don’t care if they do or not.
They have the right to like or hate whatever the fuck they want. I can’t make people like NaNoWriMo and I don’t want to make people like something I like. That’s their prerogative. As a fellow human being who shares this Earth with 8 billion other motherfuckers, I’m fine with that.
What I’m not fine with is the notion that I have to be a doormat and let people walk all over me to appease your sensibilities, because you misunderstand the point of the thread.
This thread is not for converting people to the ways of NaNoWriMo. I specifically was looking for other people who already know about it and were going to participate.
I really, really don’t know how to make this clearer to you than it already is. It’s on you if you refuse to listen and it’s pretty apparent that refusing to listen is something that you’re good at.
Sure lil buddy, whatever you say. Have fun being an overly verbose, abrasive dickwad and thinking that it somehow makes you an intellectual, that’ll show people not to “catch attitude with you.”
And you can be an oversensitive, overbearing, overly offended concern troll with nothing better to do with your life than get mad at someone because you misinterpreted a situation and are too arrogant to admit you were wrong, but it won’t make you sound any less dumb.
That’ll sure show me not to assert myself when someone is being toxic in my own thread for no reason. 🙄
He’s fucking exhausting
Oh how adorable, you followed me all the way here from a whole separate post just to cause trouble. And you even came up with an excuse to give you plausible deniability a whole half-hour after you first chimed in when you found other people who are purposefully derailing the thread because they have an axe to grind, and joined in.
I’m… actually quite touched. I didn’t know I had fans.
It’s good you feel good
Right? This dude can’t comprehend that he’s the problem here, not a writing challenge/competition. Reminds me of a saying “If it smells like shit everywhere you go, check your shoe”
Well, that troll sure got what he wanted, didn’t he? You’re so hopped up on your anger and the smell of your own shit that you can’t even see that the guy you’re defending clearly already knew what NaNoWriMo was. You just created an image in your mind of a raging lolcow who can’t take criticism and can’t see that you’re actually looking in the mirror.
But hey, you can have fun being an arrogant, ignorant blowhard who is too angry to listen to reason, or you can calm down for five seconds and actually listen to what you’re told. Your choice. 🤷
EDIT: Oh lol, the troll even went and admitted it:
Well, you still gonna sit there smelling your own farts, or are you actually going to stop and think about what’s actually happening in the thread?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Holy fucking shit, you actually are people who are so immature and vengeful over arguments on the internet that you chose to derail a NaNoWriMo thread because you have beef with me personally.
Because you actually and unironically are grown-ass adults who want to gang up on someone to get revenge over the internet. Over internet arguments
Because that is the grown-up response, am I right? 😆
Don’t actually stop. This is fucking hilarious.
I tell people like you to grow up for a reason, and this is precisely that reason. Touch. Grass.
Yeah, I’m at that point now. Normally I don’t engage this heavily with obvious trolls, guess this is my quarterly reminder why I don’t.
Eh I don’t really like the idea of banning people. It happens to me a lot too.
Just had a big argument with him in another thread, said “fuck this” and went to find new content, landed here, there’s some dude being a total dick and it’s him!
It’s like saying “fuck Cleveland I’m outta here!” then hauling ass on the interstate for hours just to roll right back into Cleveland again. Damn.
What I’d like to do is help him, but I’m not sure if it’s possible online. In person I’d just go nonverbal and express peaceful vibes until we could talk, but online all we have is words. There’s no nonverbal interaction. To way to cooperate on anything that isn’t conversational.
That’s my thinking on it, but I just smoked and I’m getting rambly.
Basically I think respect is established nomverbally and then that enables conversations where people respectfully disagree with one another. Like I don’t care if you don’t agree with my ethical ideas as long as your muscles are relaxed and your tone of voice isn’t threatening violence on me. I like to have long detailed debates with my friends.
But if you’ve got no tone of voice or body language to establish that the frame is peaceful, the only thing you have is the content of the words.
Honestly, and I’m just thinking this now, I bet that’s the root of the intergenerational difference in … uh … assumed state of conflict inherent to a conversation.
So me and the other middle aged people grew up in a world where aside from the super slow and far removed from normal “pen pal” thing, you communicated with people in physical spaces: either directly there or at least with a broad spectrum sound signal of a phone call. You get emotional data on a voice call.
But now we’ve got people who grew up with social media. In social media, you can have conversations that are only words. No time except what you can glean from word content. Not just essays and stories published, but conversations. Entirely word-based conversations, devoid of accompanying sensory experience of the conversational partner, are a new thing in human experience.
And in a text-only conversation, if you want to establish a framing relationship with the conversational partner, it needs to be done via the words.
And here’s where the generational gap comes in. It’s a difference in how we implicitly model a friendly debate:
Me and the other old fogies’ model of a friendly debate:
The youngins’ model of a friendly debate is:
We old fogies don’t need that word content signal online because we had years of face to face interaction, so our default model of a verbal disagreement is that it’s friends respectfully disagreeing.
In our pre-internet world, all of the debates were friendly debates because non-friendly debates escalated to violence. So in all the cases where the debating continued, it happened in a peaceful manner. Therefore the old fogie, pre-internet implicit belief is “debate is friendly”.
But text-only debates can be nasty without escalating (transforming) into physical conflict, and therefore the fact of a continuing debate wasn’t a solid indicator of friendly context.
So these kids need, and provide each other with, explicit respect signals. For them it is not to be assumed.
For us, it is to be assumed that unless there’s an explicit indicator otherwise, debates are friendly.
It’s physically painful.