3 ms·

> The left: "X change would be better because Y". > The right, having a meltdown about it: "I'm superior, you're snowflakes, you're pathetic babies, you're weak

> The left: "X change would be better because Y". > The right, having a meltdown about it: "I'm superior, you're snowflakes, you're pathetic babies, you're weak, I'm a real adult, I'm not afraid, you're triggered by everything, blah blah". Bad analogy. It literally applies to the article itself. The left: Mailers are really just another way to render a view The right, having a meltdown over "just" and "simply": Remove "just" and "simply" else it will ruin my flow of thought and is "jolting" to read. It comes off as "condescending", is "upsetting" and "annoying"; removing "it doesn't put people off". ---------- > Why does this happen? Why are you so insecure that suggesting a way for documentation to be made clearer makes you conjour up a fantasy about an imaginary group of people who can't learn Russian so that proves they're inferior to you? No where did I say anyone is inferior to me? I said some are snowflakes and get offended by the most random thing imaginable and there is no obligation to cater to everyone's whims and fancies. Who would have thought words like "just" or "simply" can offend anyone? But here we are discussing if words like "easy, painless, straightforward, trivial, simple and just" offend people or not. Also, the "imaginary group of people" are the ones we never hear about. We only hear about the successful ones who toiled their way to become what they wanted to become without whining about everything along the way. My limited point is: if you really want to whine, there are much better things to whine about than language/tone of innocuous words in the documentation.

jodrellblank 3y ago
> "No where did I say anyone is inferior to me? I said some are snowflakes" There, where you insult people. It seems clear from the context that you are not including yourself in the snowflakes, instead including yourself as superior to the snowflakes. When someone calls someone else stupid or slow or weak or whiner, it's usually in the context of "and I'm better". > "get offended by the most random thing imaginable and there is no obligation to cater to everyone's whims and fancies." Whenever you can split the political divide into compassion/cruelty, it's the Left encouraging or supporting compassion and the right siding with "fuck you, got mine". Who, for example, said you had an 'obligation' to write in a particular way? Instead of the article turning into "yeah, okay, no skin off my nose to remove those words" or "I prefer it this way, feel free to write your own version your way", it turns into namecalling, ego protecting, self-defense. > "The right, having a meltdown over "just" and "simply": Remove "just" and "simply" else it will ruin my flow of thought" Saying "X is bad because I trip over it" is not melting down. Saying "you trip over X because you're weak and clumsy and a whining crybaby, you'd never survive an Antartic exploration expedition like a True Scotsman, I have no obligation to do what you demand, I don't need to because I don't trip over X" is. It doesn't engage with the actual issue, doesn't consider whether the change has merit more or less than it costs, doesn't reply about why the style is clearer/better/more fun/more personal, it's a reply to show a) the author is in with the tougher more superior crowd who don't need it, b) the requestor is pathetic.

jodrellblank 3y ago

> "No where did I say anyone is inferior to me? I said some are snowflakes" There, where you insult people. It seems clear from the context that you are not including yourself in the snowflakes, instead including yourself as superior to the snowflakes. When someone calls someone else stupid or slow or weak or whiner, it's usually in the context of "and I'm better". > "get offended by the most random thing imaginable and there is no obligation to cater to everyone's whims and fancies." Whenever you can split the political divide into compassion/cruelty, it's the Left encouraging or supporting compassion and the right siding with "fuck you, got mine". Who, for example, said you had an 'obligation' to write in a particular way? Instead of the article turning into "yeah, okay, no skin off my nose to remove those words" or "I prefer it this way, feel free to write your own version your way", it turns into namecalling, ego protecting, self-defense. > "The right, having a meltdown over "just" and "simply": Remove "just" and "simply" else it will ruin my flow of thought" Saying "X is bad because I trip over it" is not melting down. Saying "you trip over X because you're weak and clumsy and a whining crybaby, you'd never survive an Antartic exploration expedition like a True Scotsman, I have no obligation to do what you demand, I don't need to because I don't trip over X" is. It doesn't engage with the actual issue, doesn't consider whether the change has merit more or less than it costs, doesn't reply about why the style is clearer/better/more fun/more personal, it's a reply to show a) the author is in with the tougher more superior crowd who don't need it, b) the requestor is pathetic.