3 ms·

What is causing you to be so unnecessarily aggressive?

alphan0n 2y ago
Liars should be called out, necessarily. Intellectual dishonesty is cancer. I could be more aggressive if it were something that really mattered.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Lying requires intent to deceive. How have you determined their intent?
  - n144q 2y ago
    > Lying requires intent to deceive Since when do we ask people to guess other people's intent when they have better things to show, which is called evidence? Surely we should talk about things with substantiated matter?
    - nkrisc 2y ago
      Because there’s a meaningful difference between being wrong and lying. There’s evidence the statement was false, no evidence it was a lie.
  - alphan0n 2y ago
    When someone says: > Oh, and of course, they don't just crawl a page once and then move on. Oh, no, they come back every 6 hours because lol why not. They also don't give a single flying fuck about robots.txt, because why should they. Their self righteous indignation and specificity of the pretend subject of that indignation precludes any doubt about intent. This guy made a whole public statement that is verifiably false. And then tried to toddler logic it away when he got called out.
    - nkrisc 2y ago
      That may all be true. That still doesn’t mean they intentionally lied.
      - alphan0n 2y ago
        What is the criteria of an intentional lie, then? Admission? The author responded: >denschub 2 days ago [–] >the robots.txt on the wiki is no longer what it was when the bot accessed it. primarily because I clean up my stuff afterwards, and the history is now completely inaccessible to non-authenticated users, so there's no need to maintain my custom robots.txt Which is verifiably untrue: HTTP/1.1 200 server: nginx/1.27.2 date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 13:37:20 GMT content-type: text/plain last-modified: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 18:52:00 GMT etag: W/"1c-62204b7e88e25" alt-svc: h3=":443", h2=":443" X-Crawler-content-encoding: gzip Content-Length: 28 User-agent: * Disallow: /w/
        nkrisc 2y ago
        > intentional lie There are no “intentional” lies, because there are no “unintentional” lies. All lies are intentional. An “unintentional lie” is better known as “being wrong”. Being wrong isn’t always lying. What’s so hard about this? An example: My wife once asked me if I had taken the trash out to the curb, and I said I had. This was demonstrably false, anyone could see I had not. Yet for whatever reason, I mistakenly believed that I had done it. I did not lie to her. I really believed I had done it. I was wrong.
        alphan0n 2y ago
        No worries, I understand. The author admitted to me that he was lying via DM, that he often does this for attention.

Liars should be called out, necessarily. Intellectual dishonesty is cancer. I could be more aggressive if it were something that really mattered.

nkrisc 2y ago
Lying requires intent to deceive. How have you determined their intent?
- n144q 2y ago
  > Lying requires intent to deceive Since when do we ask people to guess other people's intent when they have better things to show, which is called evidence? Surely we should talk about things with substantiated matter?
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    Because there’s a meaningful difference between being wrong and lying. There’s evidence the statement was false, no evidence it was a lie.
- alphan0n 2y ago
  When someone says: > Oh, and of course, they don't just crawl a page once and then move on. Oh, no, they come back every 6 hours because lol why not. They also don't give a single flying fuck about robots.txt, because why should they. Their self righteous indignation and specificity of the pretend subject of that indignation precludes any doubt about intent. This guy made a whole public statement that is verifiably false. And then tried to toddler logic it away when he got called out.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    That may all be true. That still doesn’t mean they intentionally lied.
    - alphan0n 2y ago
      What is the criteria of an intentional lie, then? Admission? The author responded: >denschub 2 days ago [–] >the robots.txt on the wiki is no longer what it was when the bot accessed it. primarily because I clean up my stuff afterwards, and the history is now completely inaccessible to non-authenticated users, so there's no need to maintain my custom robots.txt Which is verifiably untrue: HTTP/1.1 200 server: nginx/1.27.2 date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 13:37:20 GMT content-type: text/plain last-modified: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 18:52:00 GMT etag: W/"1c-62204b7e88e25" alt-svc: h3=":443", h2=":443" X-Crawler-content-encoding: gzip Content-Length: 28 User-agent: * Disallow: /w/
      - nkrisc 2y ago
        > intentional lie There are no “intentional” lies, because there are no “unintentional” lies. All lies are intentional. An “unintentional lie” is better known as “being wrong”. Being wrong isn’t always lying. What’s so hard about this? An example: My wife once asked me if I had taken the trash out to the curb, and I said I had. This was demonstrably false, anyone could see I had not. Yet for whatever reason, I mistakenly believed that I had done it. I did not lie to her. I really believed I had done it. I was wrong.
        alphan0n 2y ago
        No worries, I understand. The author admitted to me that he was lying via DM, that he often does this for attention.