this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
1134 points (98.7% liked)

Greentext

4368 readers
2397 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

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.

[–] FunctionFn@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

before and during

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.

[–] FunctionFn@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I do. I have the way you’re describing people afterwards.

That quote is self-contradictory.

I have a lifetime of experience dealing with people who talk the exact same way about people.

Your experience isn't worth anything as an argument. What does it even mean, we all have lifetime experiences of dealing with people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)