Splitting hairs about how you projected emotion as a dismissive tactic is also a dismissive tactic.
So is treating any response to “calm down, honey” as proof of the necessity in saying “calm down, honey.”
What you’re doing is bullying.
You’re ignoring the content of the argument to wind someone up, and treating any response as retroactive justification for whichever attack you’ve chosen. The correct response becomes some combination of “fuck” and “you,” but nobody can actually deliver that response, because you’re already pretending that’s the tone, and furthermore, that the argument is only a dishonest expression of that emotional outburst. These are tactics of emotional abuse. You need to stop using them.
If you’re not doing this on purpose, and instead genuinely picture some frothing caricature typing out this detailed explanation of why your comments are indistinguishable from bad-faith trolling, you still need to stop. It’s plainly incorrect. Reassess what led you here and do better next time.
On the actual point:
The first thing I said to you was, this feature Other-izes users of the competing brand, and your comment treats the company as totally blameless, even though the impact is exactly the behavior it’s designed to influence.
And you called that measured assessment “lazy and irresponsible.” Because you’re acting as though total singular blame is the metric. To such an obvious degree that you think ‘I blame the individual’ is a sensible approach to widespread issues, like they all coincidentally made the same rational choice, instead of being influenced by manipulative companies for monetary gain. Like that’s not a whole industry built on predictable human shortcomings.
Also, like it’s not instantly undercut by adding ‘I also blame the parents.’ So I guess hooray for figuring out blame can be shared.
Splitting hairs about how you projected emotion as a dismissive tactic is also a dismissive tactic.
I didn’t project emotion, I interpreted your comment as angry due to your phrasing and use of profanity. I interpreted the second comment the same way due, again, to your phrasing and use of hypocrite.
I’m sorry if I was wrong but you seem very combative to me.
I disagree with your stance on the issue at hand.
You accuse me of bullying you and being emotional abusive? I disagree with that as well but if that’s truly how you feel please report any and all comments I made you feel that way about. If the mods review them and feel the same as you then they’ll be removed.
your comment treats the company as totally blameless
Sure, I think Apple has no blame for one child bullying another, I think blame for that is on the child doing the bullying and on the child’s parents.
I think it’s lazy and irresponsible to blame Apple for an issue that exists without them and before them. Especially when there’s things they are both directly responsible for and that have a greater direct impact.
Text bubbles are what kids chose to focus on for their bullying, I’m sure Apple benefits from it, but those same kids would bully about something else if that was gone. This is a people problem, I’d argue American people, that doesn’t change if green text bubbles were gone tomorrow.
Like repeating the insults lazy and irresponsible, based on the binary all-or-nothing blame I just addressed, quoting the previous time you used those insults?
Your ardent insistence on individual responsibility doesn’t seem to extend to why someone would respond to your comments like you’ve repeatedly insulted them. Surely there’s no reason for someone to call you a hypocrite. They must be angry, in a way you’ll voice as an accusation, for no apparent reason.
Meanwhile.
Back at the point:
Apple turning the universal standard of text messages into a color-coded sign of smug superiority - see previous thirty years of their marketing - is at least partly to blame for the trend of children acting smugly superior based on that brand loyalty. Do you understand “partly to blame,” as a concept?
No problem has two causes, apparently. All or nothing. One or the other. Blaming parents instead of Apple, or else blaming Apple instead of parents.
No way these known assholes could bear any responsibility in yet another problem.
I guess I’m just not as emotionally involved as you.
When I see or hear about a person behaving poorly I blame the person, and in the case of children I blame their parents too.
How dare anyone put words in your mouth, but calling an argument emotional is fine. Hypocrite.
Hypocrite pretending systemic issues aren’t real.
I called you emotionally involved, not the argument.
This reads as emotional, specifically angry. As does the comment I’m replying to.
Splitting hairs about how you projected emotion as a dismissive tactic is also a dismissive tactic.
So is treating any response to “calm down, honey” as proof of the necessity in saying “calm down, honey.”
What you’re doing is bullying.
You’re ignoring the content of the argument to wind someone up, and treating any response as retroactive justification for whichever attack you’ve chosen. The correct response becomes some combination of “fuck” and “you,” but nobody can actually deliver that response, because you’re already pretending that’s the tone, and furthermore, that the argument is only a dishonest expression of that emotional outburst. These are tactics of emotional abuse. You need to stop using them.
If you’re not doing this on purpose, and instead genuinely picture some frothing caricature typing out this detailed explanation of why your comments are indistinguishable from bad-faith trolling, you still need to stop. It’s plainly incorrect. Reassess what led you here and do better next time.
On the actual point:
The first thing I said to you was, this feature Other-izes users of the competing brand, and your comment treats the company as totally blameless, even though the impact is exactly the behavior it’s designed to influence.
And you called that measured assessment “lazy and irresponsible.” Because you’re acting as though total singular blame is the metric. To such an obvious degree that you think ‘I blame the individual’ is a sensible approach to widespread issues, like they all coincidentally made the same rational choice, instead of being influenced by manipulative companies for monetary gain. Like that’s not a whole industry built on predictable human shortcomings.
Also, like it’s not instantly undercut by adding ‘I also blame the parents.’ So I guess hooray for figuring out blame can be shared.
I didn’t project emotion, I interpreted your comment as angry due to your phrasing and use of profanity. I interpreted the second comment the same way due, again, to your phrasing and use of hypocrite.
I’m sorry if I was wrong but you seem very combative to me.
I disagree with your stance on the issue at hand.
You accuse me of bullying you and being emotional abusive? I disagree with that as well but if that’s truly how you feel please report any and all comments I made you feel that way about. If the mods review them and feel the same as you then they’ll be removed.
Sure, I think Apple has no blame for one child bullying another, I think blame for that is on the child doing the bullying and on the child’s parents.
I think it’s lazy and irresponsible to blame Apple for an issue that exists without them and before them. Especially when there’s things they are both directly responsible for and that have a greater direct impact.
Text bubbles are what kids chose to focus on for their bullying, I’m sure Apple benefits from it, but those same kids would bully about something else if that was gone. This is a people problem, I’d argue American people, that doesn’t change if green text bubbles were gone tomorrow.
Could it be because of things you said?
Like repeating the insults lazy and irresponsible, based on the binary all-or-nothing blame I just addressed, quoting the previous time you used those insults?
Your ardent insistence on individual responsibility doesn’t seem to extend to why someone would respond to your comments like you’ve repeatedly insulted them. Surely there’s no reason for someone to call you a hypocrite. They must be angry, in a way you’ll voice as an accusation, for no apparent reason.
Meanwhile.
Back at the point:
Apple turning the universal standard of text messages into a color-coded sign of smug superiority - see previous thirty years of their marketing - is at least partly to blame for the trend of children acting smugly superior based on that brand loyalty. Do you understand “partly to blame,” as a concept?
Ok. We disagree. Have a good day!
“Here is why you are objectively wrong about a company’s role in this systemic issue.”
“Why are you so angry? You juuust disagree, because you’re lazy and stupid and irresponsible. Cheers!”
Fuck you.