3 ms·

> then that person is not worth talking to That's a highly charitable reading of what was written. I responded to only part of the comment because only part o

> then that person is not worth talking to That's a highly charitable reading of what was written. I responded to only part of the comment because only part of the comment offended me: "I'll find someone smarter." Sure, if one ignores the hyperbole (like a compiler deleting all of your files compiling your UB source code, because that ever happened), some of the idea has merit. But the expression of that core idea was not done well. But I ignored all of that. The idea that a compiler author must be mentally deficient in some way for following the language standard is absurd. Technical correctness should not be the final word in any discussion (and I never said it was), but calling someone "not smart" for being technically correct in a situation where technical correctness has a lot of value (even if you are focused on the drawbacks) in a comment doesn't really deserve a complete and thoughtful reply.

kbenson 10y ago
> That's a highly charitable reading of what was written. It is. I also think a case could be made that if someone can't get past a technicality when repeatedly asked to, they are lacking in intelligence in one aspect or another, or are purposefully being obstructive. Note that "find someone smarter" doesn't necessarily mean "you are stupid". It does imply that further discussion with this person on this topic will be pointless though. > I responded to only part of the comment because only part of the comment offended me: "I'll find someone smarter." I submit that perhaps because of the greater context and your own views, you might have read more into the words used that strictly called for. I think the original comment is essentially saying "If I keep saying I have a real problem and you keep deferring that it doesn't matter because of some technicality, talking to you is a waste of my time," albeit in slightly more colorful language.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  > Note that "find someone smarter" doesn't necessarily mean "you are stupid". It does imply that further discussion with this person on this topic will be pointless though. It also implies "Someone smarter will see it my way" which implies "I'm smarter than you" which is getting to part of the root of what's offensive about that wording. > "talking to you is a waste of my time" That's slightly less offensive than what was said because it no longer implies a "smarter" person would be less of a "waste of my time", but it's still fairly offensive.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > It also implies "Someone smarter will see it my way" which implies "I'm smarter than you" which is getting to part of the root of what's offensive about that wording. Yes, but in this case, "my way" is referring to the understanding that real problems need real solutions and that continuous deflection based on technicalities doesn't help with that. I would count that as an indicator that one person was smarter than the other in that specific context. To be clear, I don't believe intelligence can be measured along a single axis in any useful way (I've met plenty of "smart" people that acted very stupidly, and plenty of "stupid" people that showed amazing amount of competence and intelligence about certain things), so I didn't read the initial statement as indicating intelligence overall of an individual. > That's slightly less offensive than what was said because it no longer implies a "smarter" person would be less of a "waste of my time", but it's still fairly offensive. It's also fairly subjective. It's your right to be offended at what you want, but I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements. I've shown how I interpreted it somewhat differently than you, so there's at least some ambiguity.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      > I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements. Which is why I merely replied with "I don't know why you think this has anything to do with lack of intelligence." I could have said "you are wrong and it has nothing to do with lack of intelligence" (which is what I believe), or I could have gone further and said or implied I'm smarter than he is (which I didn't do, but which the original commenter said I did for some reason), but I didn't. So I believe you are preaching to the choir here.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Understood. In that respect, it's unfortunate that your original reply happened on cursory review to match what the original comment was talking about in general, even if it didn't really in intent. Without that context, there would have been nothing for anyone to object to (or more accurately, misinterpret and call negative attention to).

kbenson 10y ago

> That's a highly charitable reading of what was written. It is. I also think a case could be made that if someone can't get past a technicality when repeatedly asked to, they are lacking in intelligence in one aspect or another, or are purposefully being obstructive. Note that "find someone smarter" doesn't necessarily mean "you are stupid". It does imply that further discussion with this person on this topic will be pointless though. > I responded to only part of the comment because only part of the comment offended me: "I'll find someone smarter." I submit that perhaps because of the greater context and your own views, you might have read more into the words used that strictly called for. I think the original comment is essentially saying "If I keep saying I have a real problem and you keep deferring that it doesn't matter because of some technicality, talking to you is a waste of my time," albeit in slightly more colorful language.

jjnoakes 10y ago
> Note that "find someone smarter" doesn't necessarily mean "you are stupid". It does imply that further discussion with this person on this topic will be pointless though. It also implies "Someone smarter will see it my way" which implies "I'm smarter than you" which is getting to part of the root of what's offensive about that wording. > "talking to you is a waste of my time" That's slightly less offensive than what was said because it no longer implies a "smarter" person would be less of a "waste of my time", but it's still fairly offensive.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > It also implies "Someone smarter will see it my way" which implies "I'm smarter than you" which is getting to part of the root of what's offensive about that wording. Yes, but in this case, "my way" is referring to the understanding that real problems need real solutions and that continuous deflection based on technicalities doesn't help with that. I would count that as an indicator that one person was smarter than the other in that specific context. To be clear, I don't believe intelligence can be measured along a single axis in any useful way (I've met plenty of "smart" people that acted very stupidly, and plenty of "stupid" people that showed amazing amount of competence and intelligence about certain things), so I didn't read the initial statement as indicating intelligence overall of an individual. > That's slightly less offensive than what was said because it no longer implies a "smarter" person would be less of a "waste of my time", but it's still fairly offensive. It's also fairly subjective. It's your right to be offended at what you want, but I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements. I've shown how I interpreted it somewhat differently than you, so there's at least some ambiguity.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    > I would caution against being offended without confirming the intent and/meaning behind the statements. Which is why I merely replied with "I don't know why you think this has anything to do with lack of intelligence." I could have said "you are wrong and it has nothing to do with lack of intelligence" (which is what I believe), or I could have gone further and said or implied I'm smarter than he is (which I didn't do, but which the original commenter said I did for some reason), but I didn't. So I believe you are preaching to the choir here.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Understood. In that respect, it's unfortunate that your original reply happened on cursory review to match what the original comment was talking about in general, even if it didn't really in intent. Without that context, there would have been nothing for anyone to object to (or more accurately, misinterpret and call negative attention to).