3 ms·

It’s wrong because you weren’t just trying to avoid it personally; you were trying to scare others away by confidently declaring a problem (“a big one”) while k

It’s wrong because you weren’t just trying to avoid it personally; you were trying to scare others away by confidently declaring a problem (“a big one”) while knowing you were ignorant about it.

latchkey 4y ago
Wow, HN is really bringing out the asshats today. This is what I was responding to: > I could not tell you whether it's more or less vulnerable to market instability or bank runs than a larger bank. There was no 'confidence'. What I said was true, it isn't FDIC insured. Geez, I'm not trying to "scare" anyone, you're making that shit up. Now, if I'm _ignorant_ to the other ways it is insured, great, educate me, but don't be a dick about it.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Now, if I'm _ignorant_ to the other ways it is insured, great, educate me, but don't be a dick about it. When someone tried to educate you, you responded with: "Functionally it is declared the same in all the googling that I've done, but in practice, are they? I don't know, and personally, I don't really want to find out." Do you see how maybe that's a bit FUD?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > I don't really want to find out Why use this sort of language? > What I said was true, it isn't FDIC insured. But it is a banal truth, because they are simply insured by a different agency. > I don't know anything about NCUA and I don't care to learn So you were motivated by apathy and content in ignorance, rather than trying to scare people, with your language. Still a bad choice because it shows that you're not seriously trying to engage in a discussion and learn about a subject.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    I've already learned about the subject from the other helpful comments that didn't dig into what I was saying. Now, you're the 3rd person to come quote my statements, instead of being helpful. Geez, what is wrong with you?
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      If multiple people are coming out of the woodwork to quote your statements, perhaps consider that they aren't the ones in the wrong.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      I am being helpful. I'm helping you understand what kind of unsubstantiative language cause others to object to your statements. Now you know what the faux pas is. Perhaps next time, you won't check out of your own conversation by saying, "I don't really want to find out" and "I don't care to learn." A spirit of inquisitiveness is necessary for any productive discussion.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Hey, sincerely sorry to hurt your feelings. I was trying to explain to you what everyone is seeing in your series of comments. I will think how to write it better next time (or just not.) I appreciate the irony of coming across wrong in an attempt to tell you how you came across wrong. :)

latchkey 4y ago

Wow, HN is really bringing out the asshats today. This is what I was responding to: > I could not tell you whether it's more or less vulnerable to market instability or bank runs than a larger bank. There was no 'confidence'. What I said was true, it isn't FDIC insured. Geez, I'm not trying to "scare" anyone, you're making that shit up. Now, if I'm _ignorant_ to the other ways it is insured, great, educate me, but don't be a dick about it.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> Now, if I'm _ignorant_ to the other ways it is insured, great, educate me, but don't be a dick about it. When someone tried to educate you, you responded with: "Functionally it is declared the same in all the googling that I've done, but in practice, are they? I don't know, and personally, I don't really want to find out." Do you see how maybe that's a bit FUD?
Apocryphon 4y ago
> I don't really want to find out Why use this sort of language? > What I said was true, it isn't FDIC insured. But it is a banal truth, because they are simply insured by a different agency. > I don't know anything about NCUA and I don't care to learn So you were motivated by apathy and content in ignorance, rather than trying to scare people, with your language. Still a bad choice because it shows that you're not seriously trying to engage in a discussion and learn about a subject.
- latchkey 4y ago
  I've already learned about the subject from the other helpful comments that didn't dig into what I was saying. Now, you're the 3rd person to come quote my statements, instead of being helpful. Geez, what is wrong with you?
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    If multiple people are coming out of the woodwork to quote your statements, perhaps consider that they aren't the ones in the wrong.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    I am being helpful. I'm helping you understand what kind of unsubstantiative language cause others to object to your statements. Now you know what the faux pas is. Perhaps next time, you won't check out of your own conversation by saying, "I don't really want to find out" and "I don't care to learn." A spirit of inquisitiveness is necessary for any productive discussion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
1123581321 4y ago
Hey, sincerely sorry to hurt your feelings. I was trying to explain to you what everyone is seeing in your series of comments. I will think how to write it better next time (or just not.) I appreciate the irony of coming across wrong in an attempt to tell you how you came across wrong. :)