4 ms·
> Not really, because I didn't make that claim, so you'll have to ask someone who makes that claim. Well, you actually did. You claimed, and I quote, "being ri
by arinlen 4y ago
> Not really, because I didn't make that claim, so you'll have to ask someone who makes that claim.
Well, you actually did. You claimed, and I quote, "being right isn’t an excuse to forgo social expectations"
I'm now asking you to explain the role your "social expectations" have on "being right", specifically in the case where someone in a technical forum makes technically wrong claims.
Are you able to shed some light onto this sort of belief?
- Huggernaut 4y agoYou can be right without the other person being wrong if you aren't addressing something they said.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Well, you actually did. You claimed, and I quote, "being right isn’t an excuse to forgo social expectations" That is a very different claim than “trying to pass off technically wrong claims in a technical forum should be immune to any informative comment clarifying or clearing up misconceptions”. It is possible to be right without posting an “informative content clarifying of clearing up” a “technically wrong claim” and it is possible to “informative content clarifying of clearing up” a “technically wrong claim” in a manner which does not disregard social expectations. Being right neither requires nor excuses being a jerk.
- bmm6o 4y agoThe irony of being weirdly combative about the anodyne observation that "being right isn’t an excuse to forgo social expectations".