I joined reddit on the tailwind, so it was all echo chamber, we hate newcomers, gatekeeping, automod frenzy, too many rulebreakers, too many rules, etc I could be wrong, but thats what I imagine it used to be like.

  • mindbleach
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s in semiquotes because it’s paraphrasing. Jesus. This level of rigid demand makes sense if you’re on the spectrum or ESL or something - otherwise, what the fuck?

    I said ‘Go on, tell me this one’s synecdoche.’ (Again: paraphrasing.) You said ‘It is synecdoche, though.’ I said ‘Correct. They both are.’ And then you started litigating like I’d insulted you, or contradicted myself. Even when I directly paraphrased what you wrote, to agree with it.

    You missed a common idiom - had it laid out for you in detail - repeatedly took offense over nothing - and I’m guessing reported it. So I’m a little surprised to see you elsewhere in my replies, frustrated at overzealous moderation, when it’s your indirect implications in question.

    You’re wrong about those too, by the way. “Turbulent priest” comments are a call to violence. That line was prototypical stochastic terrorism. Not directly saying “kill that prick” - but clearly communicating that you’d like that prick killed. Even in the twelfth century people recognized this was a flimsy excuse.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re really worked up about this, but you might notice that the moderator also didn’t understand your “common idiom” and told you to explain yourself or shut up. Funny how you left that part out.

      • mindbleach
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I did explain myself. That’s why I’m asking: what the fuck?

        What was I supposed to do differently, here? What on Earth did you expect? Is there any sequence of words where you’d go, ‘oh, sure, I get it?’

        For god’s sake, I didn’t leave it out, it’s why I said I assume you reported it. It’s the whole reason we’re having this conversation. You don’t get to leave these short-ass replies and pretend proper discourse requires all possible details to be covered.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t expect anything. You’re the one attacking me for not supposedly not knowing a phrase which you then said wasn’t the phrase I didn’t know. Much like in the other thread, you’re not making much sense, but you are needlessly aggressive. I have very little patience left for it and will block you if it continues.

          • mindbleach
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not an attack. It’s the explanation you asked for!

            What else could you want?

              • mindbleach
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s still not an attack. If you just keep assuming everything someone says to you is a personal affront, nothing they say matters. The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer. You’ll just twist it all into veiled insults.

                Even when - as in that linked thread - you fucking plainly expressed confusion, and had it politely dispelled.

                You maintained your initial conclusion in spite of that. I am now asking: what the fuck was I supposed to say, instead? What did you want out of that interaction? Was there any combination of words in the English language, that would have satisfied you, or does any reply get labeled as “bitching?”

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure. This isn’t an attack. Totally not insulting.

                  You understand that idiom, but not ‘go on, make my day?’ Even when it’s patiently explained to you?

                  It was calling me stupid about something that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

                  Maybe you need to work on your interpersonal skills if you think that isn’t an attack.

                  • mindbleach
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Stupid is an essentialist insult. I’m describing behavior. Not knowing something is fine. Being offended by the explanation is baffling.

                    You demonstrably expected an explanation for what I said. Which I gave. And that somehow made you act even more hostile and defensive.

                    Third time: what else am I supposed to say?

                    If there is some way to deal with this, that you would not consider degrading - what is it?

                    if there is no way someone can question your comments, that you wouldn’t consider a personal insult - how would anyone communicate with you?