3 ms·

It can be hard to understand something when someone is more interested in being offended.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Did you really not understand my original point?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Not really, no. It just seemed to be a continuation of a made up category, and I don't understand the point of doing that.
- arolihas 3y ago
  What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.
    - arolihas 3y ago
      That's not what a stereotype is. And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended. I just said it can be hard to understand something if you are offended by it. In this case it seemed likely, because the obvious point was that different people have different preferences towards subjects and look down on others. For example, some people in tech have a disdain for literature or other "soft" subjects like the humanities. When you complain about the stereotype and state that it obscures this point suggests that one could be offended by it and it is clouding their judgement. The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. But hey, maybe you aren't offended by the term "techbro". It's perfectly possible that you lack reading comprehension skills. It's also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended When you say: > when someone is more interested in being offended Because I disagree, that is the stereotype I'm talking about. You weren't making an abstract point; you were stereotyping me based on nothing other than my questioning of paulcole's point. Technically it's true that you never claimed that everyone who disagrees with you is offended, but that's you getting confused: you were commenting on something I said to disagree with someone who isn't you. > The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. Please quote where the OP simplified their point and I replied?
        arolihas 3y ago
        They simplified here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 You didn't reply directly to that but you responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 Maybe you disagree with this stereotype, but you didn't counter it. You just said it's too hard to understand. It can be hard to understand things when your emotions are clouding your judgement, but that is just one possibility. I listed a couple other possibilities in my previous comment. I guess you can call it a stereotype, I would call it an inference. You just seem butthurt about a fairly innocuous term, because clearly you have the reasoning skills to understand what is being said. Feigning ignorance is not a good look. Best of luck to you!
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        You pasted the same link twice, so I don't know what you mean. However I can guess that you've realised I didn't respond badly to a clarification, but don't want to retract what you said. You keep guessing emotional reasons: "butthurt", "emotions clouding judgment", "being offended". If this is the way you view the world, and how you perceive motivations that's fine, but please don't pretend that this constant insinuation is reasonable or anything but lazy, or in any way useful to any discussion. It's purely subtractive, and the discussion would've been better (other than any benefit you got out of talking to someone this way) if you hadn't made these comments.

Another stereotype. I'm not offended by people substituting lazy stereotypes for thinking. I just think it comes out badly when they try and articulate points.

paulcole 3y ago
Did you really not understand my original point?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Not really, no. It just seemed to be a continuation of a made up category, and I don't understand the point of doing that.
arolihas 3y ago
What stereotype do you think I am referencing? Their point was so simple I am honestly baffled at how anyone could possibly be confused or genuinely find it inarticulate.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  The stereotype that if someone disagrees it must be because they're offended.
  - arolihas 3y ago
    That's not what a stereotype is. And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended. I just said it can be hard to understand something if you are offended by it. In this case it seemed likely, because the obvious point was that different people have different preferences towards subjects and look down on others. For example, some people in tech have a disdain for literature or other "soft" subjects like the humanities. When you complain about the stereotype and state that it obscures this point suggests that one could be offended by it and it is clouding their judgement. The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. But hey, maybe you aren't offended by the term "techbro". It's perfectly possible that you lack reading comprehension skills. It's also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > And I didn't even make the claim that everyone who disagrees with me is offended When you say: > when someone is more interested in being offended Because I disagree, that is the stereotype I'm talking about. You weren't making an abstract point; you were stereotyping me based on nothing other than my questioning of paulcole's point. Technically it's true that you never claimed that everyone who disagrees with you is offended, but that's you getting confused: you were commenting on something I said to disagree with someone who isn't you. > The fact that the OP simplified their point and you still refuse to understand it because it's a "made-up category" supports this notion. Please quote where the OP simplified their point and I replied?
      - arolihas 3y ago
        They simplified here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 You didn't reply directly to that but you responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36712940 Maybe you disagree with this stereotype, but you didn't counter it. You just said it's too hard to understand. It can be hard to understand things when your emotions are clouding your judgement, but that is just one possibility. I listed a couple other possibilities in my previous comment. I guess you can call it a stereotype, I would call it an inference. You just seem butthurt about a fairly innocuous term, because clearly you have the reasoning skills to understand what is being said. Feigning ignorance is not a good look. Best of luck to you!
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        You pasted the same link twice, so I don't know what you mean. However I can guess that you've realised I didn't respond badly to a clarification, but don't want to retract what you said. You keep guessing emotional reasons: "butthurt", "emotions clouding judgment", "being offended". If this is the way you view the world, and how you perceive motivations that's fine, but please don't pretend that this constant insinuation is reasonable or anything but lazy, or in any way useful to any discussion. It's purely subtractive, and the discussion would've been better (other than any benefit you got out of talking to someone this way) if you hadn't made these comments.