2 ms·
Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are fra
by Mz 9y ago
Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)."
That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
- the8472 9y ago> That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS) This is what I think I did. > but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured) Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual. Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
- Mz 9y agoWhat I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case." You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me. And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.