5 ms·

Edit: Nevermind. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.

• cxr 2y ago
  > same complaints and conflicts have been happening all along in broadly comparable ways You're really doubling down on this line of reasoning, even though once was already too much. I'll be even more blunt: it sucks. It's shoddy reasoning. Tammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. But she's wrong. They don't. Sammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. She's right. They actually do. Do you see how no matter how many Tammis there are, it doesn't negate whatever is true about Sammi? If you do, and you actually grasp the principle that "you have to actually go look at the specific examples before trying to draw broad conclusions from that", then what possible reason would there be, when Sammi appears or someone tries to discuss her case, to respond by bringing up how often Tammi has made the same complaint? It changes nothing, and it's a shitty thing to make Sammi deal with if she's already having a below-baseline-level experience. > please assume good faith Side quest: What does that phrase actually mean to you? I've literally only ever seen it used pre-emptively as an explicit or implicit accusation—violating the very guideline that the person invoking WP:AGF is trying to claim the other person is guilty of. The only reasonable conclusion is that they either don't know or don't care what it actually means, because it's accepted as the universal response when you want to bundle something up with WP:CIVIL, since it's free to allege WP:AGF violations and there are no consequences for accusing someone spuriously.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]