4 ms·

I write snarky comments targeting opinions that express my thinking in a concise and funny (for me at least) way. Then you come and tell me to fix my attitude,

I write snarky comments targeting opinions that express my thinking in a concise and funny (for me at least) way. Then you come and tell me to fix my attitude, directly judging my person. At no point did I judge you or used ad hominems. >But you'll get your point across better if you quit the snark, that is all. I'm not interested in getting my point accross, just in having fun. People have different objectives. Why do you want so much to tell me what I should do? Now regarding your #2, there are many links between TV exposure and bad school grades. Everybody on HN love to say that you must be a pretty idiot to read the dailymail or watch fox news, so a correlation between low intellectual content media consumption and low intelligence would harly surprise anybody. Yet you reply with "That's the funniest conspiracy theory", a logical fallacy intended to ridicule while avoiding to answer the argument. As you see, the whole conversation is rather useless, so snark is good enough.

scrollaway 11y ago
> Why do you want so much to tell me what I should do? Maybe my objective is to tell you what you should do and you shouldn't judge my objectives? I don't know. There's assumptions you have to make if you want to have a healthy conversation. For example, the assumption that when someone enters a conversation as an active participant, they're not just here to waste everyone's time. That's essentially trolling. > correlations Just because you have "links between TV exposure and bad school grades" doesn't mean "TV shows are made to keep people as uneducated imbeciles". If I told you there's a link between knife usage and missing fingers, would you tell me knives are made to reduce the average amount of fingers? > a logical fallacy intended to ridicule while avoiding to answer the argument. If you don't want to be ridiculed and want your points to be answered seriously, maybe you shouldn't be so snarky all the time and hear people out when they tell you to stop. You can't have it both ways. You can't be an arse to everybody and then expect them to treat you with respect.
- throw11221312 11y ago
  You were the one derailing this thread (insofar there is anything to derail: IP threads on HN are worthless and only good for entertainment).

scrollaway 11y ago

> Why do you want so much to tell me what I should do? Maybe my objective is to tell you what you should do and you shouldn't judge my objectives? I don't know. There's assumptions you have to make if you want to have a healthy conversation. For example, the assumption that when someone enters a conversation as an active participant, they're not just here to waste everyone's time. That's essentially trolling. > correlations Just because you have "links between TV exposure and bad school grades" doesn't mean "TV shows are made to keep people as uneducated imbeciles". If I told you there's a link between knife usage and missing fingers, would you tell me knives are made to reduce the average amount of fingers? > a logical fallacy intended to ridicule while avoiding to answer the argument. If you don't want to be ridiculed and want your points to be answered seriously, maybe you shouldn't be so snarky all the time and hear people out when they tell you to stop. You can't have it both ways. You can't be an arse to everybody and then expect them to treat you with respect.

throw11221312 11y ago
You were the one derailing this thread (insofar there is anything to derail: IP threads on HN are worthless and only good for entertainment).