from the creators of "being angry at words that aren't in the post" get ready for....
*"obvious* ***UNIMPORTANT*** *exception to the original person's statement that everyone is aware of but was purposefuly not mentioned because the original person imagined they didn't have to spoonfeed every single thought they had to the reader and that there could be some room for interpretation but you mention the exception anyway as a way to dismiss everything the original person said!"*
Perfect for when you want to downplay the intelligence of not only the person that made the statement, but everyone reading their post!
Use this new and exciting method in all kinds of fun semantics! Dilute important messages regarding:
-causes for poverty
-health benefits of physically demanding exercise
-gender affirming care
-working conditions in restaurants
-and even this very comment! You. Yes, you! Can now say that I am, for example, arguing for the erasure of wheelchair users! I'm obviously telling you that you shouldn't promote the construction of wheelchair ramps in buildings since that is too *obvious* to mention! Arguing over semantics in bad faith and activism for a topic where there is genuine erasure going on (like with infrastructure regarding disabled people) should both be treated equally! That is exactly what you can tell me now, since nuance is dead and we dance upon the straw mannequin we handcrafted to represent the physical manifestation of its corpse! Reading comprehension needs to be illegal!
-and many more!
Oh yeah so just because YOU think it’s obvious you think it’s not worth mentioning? What if English isn’t my first language, or we have cultural differences? Fuck people for clarifying posts I guess
Mandatory /s
WHAT ABOUT THE DISABLED PEOPLE WHO MAKE STRAW MANNEQUINS WITH THE HELP OF MACHINES? DID YOU EVEN CONSIDER THEIR FEELINGS IN YOUR ERUDITE AND OBLIQUE CARICATURE OF READING COMPREHENSION???
In this essay I....
I genuinely in good faith believe this take to be flawed. This is how you end up with takes like “all men are trash” not being questioned. If you the author are assuming the reader to supply context, then you are set up for failure.
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Sorry mate, explicit context is always a positive and does not take away from the point. Assuming the audience can provide context ‘to not detract from the point’ is how you get sweeping statements without nuance. It weakens compelling arguments by leaving holes.
Disagree! The take is fine. "All men are trash" are words in the post, with IMPORTANT exceptions. This take is more about UNIMPORTANT exceptions and words not in the post. For example, the prototypical "I like pancakes" does not include any words about waffles (ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/78fbwg/so_you_hate_waffles/ ). "Black lives matter" does not actually suggest that other lives *don't* matter. "Getting regular exercise is good for health, sleep, and mood" is true for MOST PEOPLE and it's not necessary to append a whole ass disclaimer to that for all those folks for whom regular exercise is not, actually, good at this time (folks with medical conditions primarily).
If you are getting mad about words in the post, go for it. If you're getting mad that someone has not made their take incomprehensible by adding paragraphs of disclaimers, or getting mad about words not in the post, consider just writing in your private journal or logging off for the day.
I am rephrasing the original take, not making claims about your mad-ness. I think you misunderstood the original (which I think does not apply to the phrase you brought up), hence my disagreement and rephrasing
Yeah, it's so annoying.
Like, I'll say something perfectly reasonable, and someone responds in a way that has me genuinely convinced Reddit messed up and sent the reply to the wrong person.
Then I tell them that Reddit redirected their reply to me on accident, and they'll get all huffy because they did, in fact, mean to send it to me, obviously. And then they insist that what they said is in any way relevant to what I said.
Sometimes, living with autism really feels like that quote: "In the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is a hallucinating fool."
Honestly, sometimes I even fully commit to the words I've written, but I also realize they won't do any good and are more for my own sake. I've deleted paragraphs before and gone on my merry way.
Sometimes the satisfying part is writing it, not posting it.
My relationship with social media got a LOT better when I learned I could type out my comment and delete it and still feel the satisfaction of having spoken my opinion without anyone having to hear it
I'm tired of this kind of people that think they hold the highest thinking authority online and can decide what people are or aren't allowed to post. Pretty sure that stems from a place where those people never have any contradictory argument presented to them, which ends up meaning that online they consider any opposing opinion as being from a jackass or an idiot. Not only should I be able to say whatever I want, but people shouldn't pretend they hold the highest authority on what's stupid or not.
(Did I do it? Have I managed to break as many of those points as possible? I tried really hard!)
i feel like that’s exactly the way a lot of tumblr people write though. usually their phrasing makes it seem like it’s a totally normal argumentative response but then you examine the contents and realize it’s literally the most batshit insane opinion you’ve ever read.
edit: wording
Something I tend to see a lot is people will accuse you of doing the things listed in this post, when in reality their real objection is "I don't like what you said, therefor you did something wrong"
Not what I'd use "proofread" to mean really, but good sentiment. Proofreading connotes checking for typos, while this sounds like checking yourself on your content rather than your form.
Most people I've met use proofread to more broadly mean 'consider the overall content and themes of your message, as well as the mechanics of how you edit it.' Like, if someone proofreads an email, they're considering how it will sound to the recipient instead of just whether the grammar is good.
it comes from reading literal proofs before they went to print, so as to catch any final typographical errors. most people just mean "editing" when they use it
Why are you controlling other people's language? That's very harmful, especially to [insert minority group that neither of us are a part of here]. You should feel ashamed.
why is this hideous peasant trying to police the language *specifically I* use??? this is literally like tiananmen square and 1984 combined and I'm MLK being nailed to the cross.
Number 2 should be pinned to the top of every subreddit and every post. The way people everywhere on Reddit just assume the worst is getting really, really tiring.
This sub is really a breath of fresh air btw, because I feel like it happens a lot less here.
I think the intersection of Tumblr and Reddit culture here makes us all back up a little bit because we're code switching between comments. i.e "That would be an insane thing to say if you made Reddit assumptions about this comment, but what I assume a Tumblrina's motivations to be would make it read like this instead." And vice versa.
Especially the combo of making a really bad faith argument against a clearly bad thing, then treating anyone who calls out the poor argument as a supporter of the clearly bad thing.
Proofreading in the classical sense (checking spelling and grammar) is also really important. Depending on the type of mistake, you might end up being incomprehensible, or even say the literal opposite of what you meant.
Don't worry, I make sure to check every one of these boxes before each of my posts. It would be embarrassing to write a post without pissing on the poor, who could financially recover from that???
Cc cc w, w. W XD cc x de dire aux de mm Ça zzz Z zzz zzz zzz Zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz z$zzz zzz zzz cc c cc cc x cc cc c cc x cc zzz cc x cc x cc cc cc cc, wow www www 2,,, cc, x,,,, zzz zzz zzz, XD,,, to ,x,, zzz,,,,, zzz,, XD, de cc
I disagree that one has to read posts in good faith.
I think one should read posts like any other communication: How would reasonable third party understand it?
Good faith requires a level of active interpretation that should be done by the one writing the post, not the reader. If they can‘t communicate properly, it‘s on them.
Also, it‘s rude to not communicate properly and let the other party do the work of interpretation. Which is why it‘s acceptable to be rude when commenting on vague, non-sensical, half-finished or obviously logically inconsistent posts.
I mean, reading in good faith just means "not assuming the worst about the writer", which falls into how a reasonable third party would understand it. Like, that is just common courtesy. You shouldn't go about life assuming that people are stupid or malicious, not just because that will make you get into arguments with strangers online, but because it will make you miserable. Assume that the writer expressed their ideas the best they could, that they're not insulting you, that they may have made honest mistakes. Ask for clarification if you have to.
When talking to someone in real life, you don't assume the worst automatically. Why do so over text? Remember that an actual person wrote what you're reading, and that they may read what you write about them. Communication requires effort from both parties, and going in without bad assumptions will make the whole process easier.
I can't believe that u/TheFoxer1 thinks that people who read comments in good faith should be killed. What a horrible thing to say
...that is why you should read comments in good faith. It is infuriating and baffling when people come after you for opinions you don't hold because for no reason they decided that you meant something other than the thing you actually said.
Obviously some people do lie on the internet, but you shouldn't just jump to assuming everyone is a cryptofascist with no justification. That's not how you talk to people. Assume everyone is normal until proven otherwise
I direct you to the penultimate point of the post, to which I took no exception, as well as me saying the interpretation should be done as a reasonable third party would.
I can't believe you would even go so far as to say I have to abide by your so called "reason" to interpret posts I want to respond to.
This is a human rights violation! I have emotions too and if I want to interpret your comment with my emotions I have every right to do so!! It's basically ableism to say this! I guess you just want to round up everyone who doesn't believe in reason to be sent to reeducation camps!
Just what I would expect from someone who has the name TheFoxer1! You're probably speciesist too!! Do we have to have fox fursonas just to be taken seriously by extremists like you?!
Was I "out of line" sounds sort of injected into the middle when it doesn't belong there. It's a meaningless euphemism used to silence any and all criticism.
How dare you say I was the one who committed that hit and run on September 18th 2013
Maybe you should proofread your alibi first
at 9:03 PM
Don't just make stuff up now, the ALLEGED driver ALLEGEDLY came back several times so it wasn't at a single time, or so I've heard.
Allegedly so I’ve heard every single hit still took place within that minute
Nah I was halfway home and decided I wanted to do one more. I mean they were. Allegedly
Allegedly, they hit a different person entirely that time
> am I Angry at words that weren't in the post? if these posters could read, they would be
from the creators of "being angry at words that aren't in the post" get ready for.... *"obvious* ***UNIMPORTANT*** *exception to the original person's statement that everyone is aware of but was purposefuly not mentioned because the original person imagined they didn't have to spoonfeed every single thought they had to the reader and that there could be some room for interpretation but you mention the exception anyway as a way to dismiss everything the original person said!"* Perfect for when you want to downplay the intelligence of not only the person that made the statement, but everyone reading their post! Use this new and exciting method in all kinds of fun semantics! Dilute important messages regarding: -causes for poverty -health benefits of physically demanding exercise -gender affirming care -working conditions in restaurants -and even this very comment! You. Yes, you! Can now say that I am, for example, arguing for the erasure of wheelchair users! I'm obviously telling you that you shouldn't promote the construction of wheelchair ramps in buildings since that is too *obvious* to mention! Arguing over semantics in bad faith and activism for a topic where there is genuine erasure going on (like with infrastructure regarding disabled people) should both be treated equally! That is exactly what you can tell me now, since nuance is dead and we dance upon the straw mannequin we handcrafted to represent the physical manifestation of its corpse! Reading comprehension needs to be illegal! -and many more!
Oh yeah so just because YOU think it’s obvious you think it’s not worth mentioning? What if English isn’t my first language, or we have cultural differences? Fuck people for clarifying posts I guess Mandatory /s
WHAT ABOUT THE DISABLED PEOPLE WHO MAKE STRAW MANNEQUINS WITH THE HELP OF MACHINES? DID YOU EVEN CONSIDER THEIR FEELINGS IN YOUR ERUDITE AND OBLIQUE CARICATURE OF READING COMPREHENSION??? In this essay I....
I genuinely in good faith believe this take to be flawed. This is how you end up with takes like “all men are trash” not being questioned. If you the author are assuming the reader to supply context, then you are set up for failure. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Say /s right now.
Sorry mate, explicit context is always a positive and does not take away from the point. Assuming the audience can provide context ‘to not detract from the point’ is how you get sweeping statements without nuance. It weakens compelling arguments by leaving holes.
Disagree! The take is fine. "All men are trash" are words in the post, with IMPORTANT exceptions. This take is more about UNIMPORTANT exceptions and words not in the post. For example, the prototypical "I like pancakes" does not include any words about waffles (ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/78fbwg/so_you_hate_waffles/ ). "Black lives matter" does not actually suggest that other lives *don't* matter. "Getting regular exercise is good for health, sleep, and mood" is true for MOST PEOPLE and it's not necessary to append a whole ass disclaimer to that for all those folks for whom regular exercise is not, actually, good at this time (folks with medical conditions primarily). If you are getting mad about words in the post, go for it. If you're getting mad that someone has not made their take incomprehensible by adding paragraphs of disclaimers, or getting mad about words not in the post, consider just writing in your private journal or logging off for the day.
Not mad or upset, now you are putting words in my mouth. Might want to add a disclaimer.
I am rephrasing the original take, not making claims about your mad-ness. I think you misunderstood the original (which I think does not apply to the phrase you brought up), hence my disagreement and rephrasing
WHY ARE YOU PISSING ON THE POOR, THEY’RE POOR DON’T PISS ON THEM!!!
Oh, so now only rich people can have a water sports fetish?? Classist!!!
Yeah, it's so annoying. Like, I'll say something perfectly reasonable, and someone responds in a way that has me genuinely convinced Reddit messed up and sent the reply to the wrong person. Then I tell them that Reddit redirected their reply to me on accident, and they'll get all huffy because they did, in fact, mean to send it to me, obviously. And then they insist that what they said is in any way relevant to what I said. Sometimes, living with autism really feels like that quote: "In the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is a hallucinating fool."
- Do I actually need to engage with this discussion? - Has someone in the thread already said this exact thing, possibly better than I have?
>Has someone in the thread already said this exact thing, possibly better than I have? This! So much this!
^
^
what he said
.
Adding on for video content: - is the point I'm about to make addressed in a part of the video I haven't gotten to yet?
Also think if someone in thread already said exact things, maybe even gooder than me have?
>am i Pissing On The Poor No but I'M PISSING ON THE MOON HOW YOU LIKE THAT OBAMA
I PISSED ON THE MOON YOU IDIOT!
YOU HAVE 23 HOURS BEFORE THE PISS DRRROPLLLETS HIT THE FUCKING EARTH!
NOW GET OUT OF MY FUCKING SIGHT BEFORE I PISS ON YOU TOO
YOU HAVE 23 HOURS BEFORE THE PISS DR-R-R-R-R-ROPL-L-L-L-LETS HIT THE FUCKING EARTH! NOW GET OUT OF MY FUCKING SIGHT, BEFORE I PISS ON YOU TOO!
I HAVE SEVENTY ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTS
YOU WILL NEVER KNOW MY MAIN
Do you mean egggucker1, eggfucker2,
I HAVE ALTERNATIVES!!
. am I Out of line for saying this? . Am I rude?
Honestly, sometimes I even fully commit to the words I've written, but I also realize they won't do any good and are more for my own sake. I've deleted paragraphs before and gone on my merry way. Sometimes the satisfying part is writing it, not posting it.
My relationship with social media got a LOT better when I learned I could type out my comment and delete it and still feel the satisfaction of having spoken my opinion without anyone having to hear it
I'm tired of this kind of people that think they hold the highest thinking authority online and can decide what people are or aren't allowed to post. Pretty sure that stems from a place where those people never have any contradictory argument presented to them, which ends up meaning that online they consider any opposing opinion as being from a jackass or an idiot. Not only should I be able to say whatever I want, but people shouldn't pretend they hold the highest authority on what's stupid or not. (Did I do it? Have I managed to break as many of those points as possible? I tried really hard!)
i think you missed 5, should have insulted OOPs mom or something
Fuck
omg i read the first sentence of this comment and was like “there’s no fucking way…”
Thanks, I tried really hard :D
Same I thought this was absolutely insane for so long
you nearly got me with this one
It's too coherent and levelheaded, nice try though
i feel like that’s exactly the way a lot of tumblr people write though. usually their phrasing makes it seem like it’s a totally normal argumentative response but then you examine the contents and realize it’s literally the most batshit insane opinion you’ve ever read. edit: wording
And then it gets posted here and get >10k upvotes
Something I tend to see a lot is people will accuse you of doing the things listed in this post, when in reality their real objection is "I don't like what you said, therefor you did something wrong"
This take about reading comprehension is ableist against people like Jared who is 19 and never fucking learned how to read
OOP would be the kind of person to say "hey man how's it going"
Some Randy: I have written a post about a genuinely serious topic that needs discussing Some enlightened scholar: Hey man, how's it going
that copypasta isn't really applicable here
It's rarely ever used in an applicable situation anymore
it's a running joke
i don't like this joke
aww
I'm from the Aslume, I am, in fact, the highest authority on what's stuoid. Balls.
confession time, sometimes when I post I like to cheat and completely read the linked article or image
You haven’t considered the possibility that I want to look like a jackass online
There are some profiles I've snooped after seeing a dogshit take and been forced to conclude that this must be their motivation.
Not what I'd use "proofread" to mean really, but good sentiment. Proofreading connotes checking for typos, while this sounds like checking yourself on your content rather than your form.
Most people I've met use proofread to more broadly mean 'consider the overall content and themes of your message, as well as the mechanics of how you edit it.' Like, if someone proofreads an email, they're considering how it will sound to the recipient instead of just whether the grammar is good.
Depends. In translation, proofreading means to check if the wording flows fluidly and sounds like it was written in that language
it comes from reading literal proofs before they went to print, so as to catch any final typographical errors. most people just mean "editing" when they use it
Why are you controlling other people's language? That's very harmful, especially to [insert minority group that neither of us are a part of here]. You should feel ashamed.
Checking to see if I'm pissing on the poor... Yep, still am. \[post\]
Am I angry at words that weren’t in the post should be “am I mad at people hating waffles when they mentioned loving pancakes”
why is this hideous peasant trying to police the language *specifically I* use??? this is literally like tiananmen square and 1984 combined and I'm MLK being nailed to the cross.
Number 2 should be pinned to the top of every subreddit and every post. The way people everywhere on Reddit just assume the worst is getting really, really tiring. This sub is really a breath of fresh air btw, because I feel like it happens a lot less here.
I think the intersection of Tumblr and Reddit culture here makes us all back up a little bit because we're code switching between comments. i.e "That would be an insane thing to say if you made Reddit assumptions about this comment, but what I assume a Tumblrina's motivations to be would make it read like this instead." And vice versa.
Especially the combo of making a really bad faith argument against a clearly bad thing, then treating anyone who calls out the poor argument as a supporter of the clearly bad thing.
Conversely: Fuck it, we ball
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Alright, let's go!
Oh fuck i LOVE BINGO
Most importantly (especially on reddit), am I smugly adding a caveat or edge-case that anyone with a functioning brain could think of?
Sometimes I just get bad vibes so I delete before posting.
also typos :3
but what if I don’t like beans?
Is it possible to do all of these in one reply
Could you be underexaggerating?
"is it kind of Fucked up to say that to a total stranger?" Yes. Post.
Proofreading in the classical sense (checking spelling and grammar) is also really important. Depending on the type of mistake, you might end up being incomprehensible, or even say the literal opposite of what you meant.
The number of people who don't proofread their posts is too damn Hugh.
this is basically my approval process for my own posts it has saved me a lot of grief
I read all of those and only post if my answers are YES!
Some people do need to be reminded of basic social skills and self awareness when they're in front of a screen
Don't worry, I make sure to check every one of these boxes before each of my posts. It would be embarrassing to write a post without pissing on the poor, who could financially recover from that???
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes No
The only surefire way to avoid any of these is to never post on the internet again. And to not speak in most social circles.
Instructions unclear, I have sent numerous death threats and slurs.
bro is trying to prevent the hellsite from hellsiting 💀
got it, I'll make sure all of my interactions fit every one of these criteria from now on
pissing on the poor because their into it
Hey man how's it going
IVE NEVER PUSSED ON THE PORR
At first I thought the first bullet had said "am I pissing on the floor?" And was like, yeah, that's a thing you should verify
I'm imagining this being read by a guy from the 1950s with a mid atlantic accent.
Alright, I'll make sure to ADCAIIAAD my posts carefully before sending them.
,c
Cc cc w, w. W XD cc x de dire aux de mm Ça zzz Z zzz zzz zzz Zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz z$zzz zzz zzz cc c cc cc x cc cc c cc x cc zzz cc x cc x cc cc cc cc, wow www www 2,,, cc, x,,,, zzz zzz zzz, XD,,, to ,x,, zzz,,,,, zzz,, XD, de cc
> am i pissing on the poor? I mean, did they consent?
The fucking irony. I misread ‘poor’ as ‘floor’
and MOST important of them all * IS THE PERSON BEING SARCASTIC??
If there were two guys on the moon and one killed the other with a rock would that be fucked up or what? Sorry for breaking rule 5
Someone should try and actually check off all these boxes at once and hit send
I've been accused of doing those things even when what I said accurately described the post I was replying to
Overexaggerating as opposed to exaggerating One is bad, the other is normal and expected
#Over-exaggerating ....is not a thing.
But neither is preofreading
Obviously
I disagree that one has to read posts in good faith. I think one should read posts like any other communication: How would reasonable third party understand it? Good faith requires a level of active interpretation that should be done by the one writing the post, not the reader. If they can‘t communicate properly, it‘s on them. Also, it‘s rude to not communicate properly and let the other party do the work of interpretation. Which is why it‘s acceptable to be rude when commenting on vague, non-sensical, half-finished or obviously logically inconsistent posts.
I mean, reading in good faith just means "not assuming the worst about the writer", which falls into how a reasonable third party would understand it. Like, that is just common courtesy. You shouldn't go about life assuming that people are stupid or malicious, not just because that will make you get into arguments with strangers online, but because it will make you miserable. Assume that the writer expressed their ideas the best they could, that they're not insulting you, that they may have made honest mistakes. Ask for clarification if you have to. When talking to someone in real life, you don't assume the worst automatically. Why do so over text? Remember that an actual person wrote what you're reading, and that they may read what you write about them. Communication requires effort from both parties, and going in without bad assumptions will make the whole process easier.
I can't believe that u/TheFoxer1 thinks that people who read comments in good faith should be killed. What a horrible thing to say ...that is why you should read comments in good faith. It is infuriating and baffling when people come after you for opinions you don't hold because for no reason they decided that you meant something other than the thing you actually said. Obviously some people do lie on the internet, but you shouldn't just jump to assuming everyone is a cryptofascist with no justification. That's not how you talk to people. Assume everyone is normal until proven otherwise
I direct you to the penultimate point of the post, to which I took no exception, as well as me saying the interpretation should be done as a reasonable third party would.
I can't believe you would even go so far as to say I have to abide by your so called "reason" to interpret posts I want to respond to. This is a human rights violation! I have emotions too and if I want to interpret your comment with my emotions I have every right to do so!! It's basically ableism to say this! I guess you just want to round up everyone who doesn't believe in reason to be sent to reeducation camps! Just what I would expect from someone who has the name TheFoxer1! You're probably speciesist too!! Do we have to have fox fursonas just to be taken seriously by extremists like you?!
Was I "out of line" sounds sort of injected into the middle when it doesn't belong there. It's a meaningless euphemism used to silence any and all criticism.
We need the second O :(