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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
“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.
deleted by creator
Do you read your own comments? You keep doing exactly that.
Do you speak English?
deleted by creator