Your comment doesn’t make sense, I’m calling them that after the fact, not during the fact, and order of the sequence matters.
EDIT: Which means that you both failed to understand a simple sentiment and yet showed the typical arrogance to talk about “rightfully so”. So yeah, I’d say you are not particularly smart. After you showed that, again. Not before.
You’re the one failing to understand. I’m drawing an inference about how you treated them before and during the interaction you’re complaining about, based on how you’re speaking about them after the fact. I’m saying that the fact that you’re willing to dismiss people as “not particularly smart” after a single interaction is very indicative of you being generally judgemental and rude, traits that will increase the probability that people will be disrespectful to you. This second comment of yours has only further convinced me.
You have no information at all to draw anything on that.
after a single interaction
On that neither.
is very indicative of you being generally judgemental and rude
Now - yes.
traits that will increase the probability that people will be disrespectful to you
The saddest thing is that people IRL respect me more when I’m in this mood. Including romantic interests. And when I’m respectful, ready to believe in people and so on, it’s different.
That’s the key actually - one doesn’t trust a dog not to eat chocolate left on the table unsupervised. One doesn’t trust friends with known errors not to err this way again. I think this is the root problem, but too lazy to elaborate.
This second comment of yours has only further convinced me.
You’ve assumed too much (see above) to pretend that it was my comment which convinced you of anything. You came with your opinion without any intent to change it. You got what you wanted. That, of course, reduces the value of your comments to virtually zero.
You have no information at all to draw anything on that.
I do. I have the way you’re describing people afterwards. I have a lifetime of experience dealing with people who talk the exact same way about people.
Your comment looks like it should be smart. But the dude you’re replying to isn’t wrong. You just sound condescending, and of this is how you talk in real life, I get why some people don’t react positively.
This particular thread started about people being incorrect and arrogant to the degree that they, for example, consider correctness less important than socialization, and thus there being a niche for using the word “normies”.
If pointing out confident incorrectness is condescending, then so it is.
If you think people should treat you as being correct when you are incorrect out of wish to be perceived as more sociable - then you are wrong, tone is bearable, incorrectness just makes it waste of time.
You just sound condescending, and of this is how you talk in real life, I get why some people don’t react positively.
Actually they do react positively, because I usually communicate IRL to people who look at the meaning, not the tone, quite often smarter than me. I actually happen to be the polite one. My social problems are in a different dimension.
You expect people to communicate only by interpreting meaning correctly. And that’s simply not how most people operate. Tone IS important. Socialization IS key when communcating with a lot of people. I am not saying being stubbornly incorrect is a good trait, but the fact that you think there are a lot of people who are, is probably part of your problem here.
Any person just wants to be treated decently, which doesn’t include getting called ‘normie’.
Yes, but failure in choosing more pleasant tone is not fatal, it can be, eh, possibly endured, while pretending that a mistake is not a mistake certainly poisons everything in the conversation after it.
“Normie” is an insult for those who say or behave the way implying that you yourself are not normal. It’s not as if it was hard to find people matching the criterion.
And frankly for socialization people dance, tell anecdotes and do other similar things. In an argument correctness is the goal.
Your comment doesn’t make sense, I’m calling them that after the fact, not during the fact, and order of the sequence matters.
EDIT: Which means that you both failed to understand a simple sentiment and yet showed the typical arrogance to talk about “rightfully so”. So yeah, I’d say you are not particularly smart. After you showed that, again. Not before.
You’re the one failing to understand. I’m drawing an inference about how you treated them before and during the interaction you’re complaining about, based on how you’re speaking about them after the fact. I’m saying that the fact that you’re willing to dismiss people as “not particularly smart” after a single interaction is very indicative of you being generally judgemental and rude, traits that will increase the probability that people will be disrespectful to you. This second comment of yours has only further convinced me.
You have no information at all to draw anything on that.
On that neither.
Now - yes.
The saddest thing is that people IRL respect me more when I’m in this mood. Including romantic interests. And when I’m respectful, ready to believe in people and so on, it’s different.
That’s the key actually - one doesn’t trust a dog not to eat chocolate left on the table unsupervised. One doesn’t trust friends with known errors not to err this way again. I think this is the root problem, but too lazy to elaborate.
You’ve assumed too much (see above) to pretend that it was my comment which convinced you of anything. You came with your opinion without any intent to change it. You got what you wanted. That, of course, reduces the value of your comments to virtually zero.
I do. I have the way you’re describing people afterwards. I have a lifetime of experience dealing with people who talk the exact same way about people.
That quote is self-contradictory.
Your experience isn’t worth anything as an argument. What does it even mean, we all have lifetime experiences of dealing with people.
Your comment looks like it should be smart. But the dude you’re replying to isn’t wrong. You just sound condescending, and of this is how you talk in real life, I get why some people don’t react positively.
This particular thread started about people being incorrect and arrogant to the degree that they, for example, consider correctness less important than socialization, and thus there being a niche for using the word “normies”.
If pointing out confident incorrectness is condescending, then so it is.
If you think people should treat you as being correct when you are incorrect out of wish to be perceived as more sociable - then you are wrong, tone is bearable, incorrectness just makes it waste of time.
Actually they do react positively, because I usually communicate IRL to people who look at the meaning, not the tone, quite often smarter than me. I actually happen to be the polite one. My social problems are in a different dimension.
You expect people to communicate only by interpreting meaning correctly. And that’s simply not how most people operate. Tone IS important. Socialization IS key when communcating with a lot of people. I am not saying being stubbornly incorrect is a good trait, but the fact that you think there are a lot of people who are, is probably part of your problem here.
Any person just wants to be treated decently, which doesn’t include getting called ‘normie’.
Yes, but failure in choosing more pleasant tone is not fatal, it can be, eh, possibly endured, while pretending that a mistake is not a mistake certainly poisons everything in the conversation after it.
“Normie” is an insult for those who say or behave the way implying that you yourself are not normal. It’s not as if it was hard to find people matching the criterion.
And frankly for socialization people dance, tell anecdotes and do other similar things. In an argument correctness is the goal.