3 ms·

> Factually you ascribed false motives to me To be fair, while the motives for falsely claiming that you can read thousands of peoples' minds are pretty limite

> Factually you ascribed false motives to me To be fair, while the motives for falsely claiming that you can read thousands of peoples' minds are pretty limited, there are other motives than just because you're offended. Do you think that you're a psychic, instead? > because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could be blunt and rude, so you're mischaracterizing both my words and intent. Still incorrect. I described the words that you wrote in your comments. No amount of (now blatant and intentional) lies will change that. You claim here that you said it is "generally" broached - no, you didn't, you said always, and you know that very well. > You could just disagree and say I'm wrong instead of pretending like I'm committing a war crime with a comment on HN. "Mass scale" is some over the top dramatic nonsense. Still lying. You know I'm not pretending you're committing a war crime, and that I used "mass scale" to point out that, as egregious as it is to claim that you can read others' minds and intents, it's even worse to pretend that you can do that for hundreds or thousands of people. > You think I was making a claim that literally, 100% of cases fit into this? You literally said "always", so yes, that was your claim, as seen above in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47378710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47378710 : >> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” Even if you meant 90% of the time (which you very clearly did not say), you're still making the clinically insane claim that you are able to read the minds and intentions of a huge number of people. > It's poor taste to insult others' reading comprehension. It's far worse taste to respond to comments without actually reading them first, as you have repeatedly now. > But also if you can't understand nuance and you read basic statements as "literally this applies in 100% of situations" Again, let me quote you your own words: > Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” Note the "always". Admit it - you said something insane because you thought you wouldn't get called out on it. > The very fact that the author is "begging" others to "follow Crocker's rules" in their communication says the author doesn't understand Crocker's rules. >> so this isn't really relevant. > Disingenuous nonsense on a discussion forum. No, it's factually true. If you make an irrelevant response because you're not responding to someone's points, your response is not relevant. This is tautologically true. > "I don't agree with your perspective so it's not relevant." Are you one of those people that can't tell the different between opinion and fact/reason? Because it sure seems like it - it doesn't look like you're capable of understanding that, because you badly misunderstood the author's points and argued against a strawman, your response is not relevant. It's not an opinion - it's just fact. At this point, because it's clear you cannot tell the difference between perspective/opinion and fact/logic, and because you've lied about your own words that are written above, there isn't much of a point to continuing the conversation - if you write more lies, I'll point them out so that future HN readers browsing this thread about Crocker's Rules won't be misled, but I know that I cannot convince someone who is operating emotionally, not intellectually, and is willing to lie about their own words despite them being less than a page above in the same thread.

dpark 7mo ago
If I described someone as always smiling, would you suppose this is an assertion that they literally never make a non-smiling facial expression? If I said "The phone calls I receive are always SPAM", would this mean I've literally never received a non-spam call? Do you truly not understand the phrasing here or are you just pretending not to? > If you make an irrelevant response because you're not responding to someone's points I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking and I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it. You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse.
- throw10920 7mo ago
  For the future HN reader: > If I described someone as always smiling... Even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that "always" doesn't mean "always", and that they didn't mean it like that in the first place and then changed the goalposts when they were called out on it, they're still making an insane claim - either out of malice, or clinical insanity (e.g. you think that you can read others' minds). > I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking They very clearly have not. They still haven't admitted to either insanity or malice in their statement >>> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” Note also the repeated attempts to distract from this wild claim with fallacies, misdirection, and emotional manipulation: > You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse. ...and then, of course, the root of the whole argument was their failure to read and understand either Crocker's Rules or the author's point: >> This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective. ...which is, of course, factually an incorrect understanding or response to either the author or Crocker. > I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. And yet again we see that they're incapable of using logic, and are just operating emotionally, because... > You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it. Failure of reading comprehension strikes again - I already responded to this point, and they completely missed it: > You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant. This is factually true. Their comment "This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective." is wrong and irrelevant regardless of whether they're responding to the author or Crocker. It does not matter whether the author got Crocker right or not. The objective truth is that this user's arguments are irrelevant to both. We've already gone over each of these points at least once above, so if we keep looping, this is probably a bot, and I'll just stop responding after another marker for future readers.

dpark 7mo ago

If I described someone as always smiling, would you suppose this is an assertion that they literally never make a non-smiling facial expression? If I said "The phone calls I receive are always SPAM", would this mean I've literally never received a non-spam call? Do you truly not understand the phrasing here or are you just pretending not to? > If you make an irrelevant response because you're not responding to someone's points I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking and I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it. You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse.

throw10920 7mo ago
For the future HN reader: > If I described someone as always smiling... Even if we pretend, for the sake of argument, that "always" doesn't mean "always", and that they didn't mean it like that in the first place and then changed the goalposts when they were called out on it, they're still making an insane claim - either out of malice, or clinical insanity (e.g. you think that you can read others' minds). > I have responded thoroughly to your weird nitpicking They very clearly have not. They still haven't admitted to either insanity or malice in their statement >>> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” Note also the repeated attempts to distract from this wild claim with fallacies, misdirection, and emotional manipulation: > You're very self righteous in your indignation, so much so that you would rather repeat the same thing over and over rather than actually converse. ...and then, of course, the root of the whole argument was their failure to read and understand either Crocker's Rules or the author's point: >> This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective. ...which is, of course, factually an incorrect understanding or response to either the author or Crocker. > I responded directly to your claim that I mischaracterized the author's point by showing how they misunderstand Crocker's rules. And yet again we see that they're incapable of using logic, and are just operating emotionally, because... > You even quoted it but you apparently didn't read it. Failure of reading comprehension strikes again - I already responded to this point, and they completely missed it: > You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant. This is factually true. Their comment "This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective." is wrong and irrelevant regardless of whether they're responding to the author or Crocker. It does not matter whether the author got Crocker right or not. The objective truth is that this user's arguments are irrelevant to both. We've already gone over each of these points at least once above, so if we keep looping, this is probably a bot, and I'll just stop responding after another marker for future readers.