undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrobertlagrant2y ago0 comments

> 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?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

arolihas2y ago· 2 in thread

They simplified here: 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

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!

robertlagrantOP2y 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.

arolihas2y ago

That's a poor guess mate, since the link I posted twice was your own response. I have nothing to retract. I guessed other reasons too in previous comments, like maybe you are being disingenuous.

The other one comment I meant to paste there was the simplified point he made. You couldn't figure out this is the one I meant to share? He only made two comments, I find it hard to believe you couldn't figure out what I was referencing, seems like you are just being disingenuous again. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674076#36698701

If you want to add something to the conversation, maybe you can explain why the stereotype is completely ungrounded in reality. You would have a tough time doing so, since in other comments you're talking to other tech-inclined people who are downplaying the utility of learning ancient history and literature.

You claiming you don't understand the point paulcole is making at all is ludicrous. None of your comments have added anything at all of value, whether you had an emotional motive behind them or not. You saying his point is hard to understand is just undermining yourself.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse