3 ms·

> and need a summary that isn't really that close to what you actually said. Aha, so this: > Such is the way of living in a community, where your actions will

by fao_ 6y ago

> and need a summary that isn't really that close to what you actually said. Aha, so this: > Such is the way of living in a community, where your actions will affect other people. Part of reforming yourself is attempting to undo the damage that you have caused in the past. And so part of that reformation would inherently have to be, retracting or attempting to undo the damage caused by those public statements. > A different way to put this would be: Is it possible to reform yourself and not try to undo the damage of your past actions in some way? Are you truly reformed if you wave your hand and do not take responsibility for them? is not at all similar to this: > Can you really become a better person if you haven't attempted to undo harm you caused? If you have changed, part of that change is acknowledging that you harmed people, and how those actions were harmful. You can't acknowledge that you have harmed people, and then handwave that harm by ignoring it, and still say you are a changed person. > It's inherent to self-improvement that you would want to undo the harm that you have caused, if you understand it. > And if you don't, then can you be said to have improved? Because to me they are relatively close retellings of the other.

ljm 6y ago
You're rewriting it outside of the concept of reformation. So no, they're not compatible retellings. Your tl;dr is basically the same post with 'reform' taken out of it. Even without that, it's patronising to assume I didn't read what you had to say such that you had to reword it while also being sarcastic about it. I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're responding to your imagined version of my response, and not the actual one. It feels to me like you're creating an argument when I was merely disagreeing and presenting my reason why. I don't really understand how the tone of this chat became so aggressive through you. Our peers here on HN can decide that, one way or another.
- fao_ 6y ago
  > I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're responding to your imagined version of my response, and not the actual one. It feels to me like you're creating an argument when I was merely disagreeing and presenting my reason why. I don't really understand how the tone of this chat became so aggressive through you. My sentiments to you exactly. You hyperfocused on the term "reformation" when it was very clear from the context and the previous 5 - 6 paragraphs I had written on the subject, that it was intended as a substitute for "self improvement", "self betterment", "taking accountability for one's actions". You decided to somehow interpret it as an authoritarian argument, and deliberately twisted my argument into something that you could then argue against. It was utterly fascinating and simultaneously irritating to witness how deft you were at doing it, hence the sarcasm. The argument was literally just about how everything you do in public happens to affect the people it reaches. And people should be accountable for the effects of their actions in that public (or private) space.

by fao_ 6y ago

ljm 6y ago

You're rewriting it outside of the concept of reformation. So no, they're not compatible retellings. Your tl;dr is basically the same post with 'reform' taken out of it. Even without that, it's patronising to assume I didn't read what you had to say such that you had to reword it while also being sarcastic about it. I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're responding to your imagined version of my response, and not the actual one. It feels to me like you're creating an argument when I was merely disagreeing and presenting my reason why. I don't really understand how the tone of this chat became so aggressive through you. Our peers here on HN can decide that, one way or another.

fao_ 6y ago
> I don't feel that you're responding to me in good faith. More to that, I still feel like you're responding to your imagined version of my response, and not the actual one. It feels to me like you're creating an argument when I was merely disagreeing and presenting my reason why. I don't really understand how the tone of this chat became so aggressive through you. My sentiments to you exactly. You hyperfocused on the term "reformation" when it was very clear from the context and the previous 5 - 6 paragraphs I had written on the subject, that it was intended as a substitute for "self improvement", "self betterment", "taking accountability for one's actions". You decided to somehow interpret it as an authoritarian argument, and deliberately twisted my argument into something that you could then argue against. It was utterly fascinating and simultaneously irritating to witness how deft you were at doing it, hence the sarcasm. The argument was literally just about how everything you do in public happens to affect the people it reaches. And people should be accountable for the effects of their actions in that public (or private) space.