Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..."
> reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations.
Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?
This conversation doesn't belong here and will devolve into a flame war. It's not my job to teach you how to communicate.
> I think the problem is firmly on your side
The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
>The fact that you're getting downvoted and flagged to death would lead me to disagree. It seems most people didn't interpret it as you intended, which is a failure of communication on your side.
The fact that I did not choose to tailor my communication to the people obsessively fighting their ideological battles on the internet does in fact not indicate a failure on my part.
There's simply no way a reasonable person can read my comments and reach the same conclusions you have.
Here's the same conversation we just had, simply with the US replaced with another country. Perhaps it'll help you understand just how ridiculous you come across as to someone who isn't emotionally invested in the culture wars:
Commenter 1: Why are residents of Germany letting Hitler go rogue internationally, risk going to war with basically everyone else and also murder all the jews?
Commenter 2: If you can think of a good way to stop that absolutely terrible thing from happening, I'm all ears
Me: You could shoot him
messe: I'm no fan of the German administration (I live in Denmark and am LGBT), but leave that inflammatory rhetoric off of HN.
And before someone brings up Godwin's law or something equally silly, we're literally talking about superpowers fighting over Europe here. Hitler is a perfectly fitting comparison.
> The fact that I did not choose to tailor my communication to the people obsessively fighting their ideological battles on the internet does in fact not indicate a failure on my part.
It kinda does if you're actually trying to get your message across and not just doing this for your own self gratification.
I'm done here. Too close to Godwin's law after your last remarks. I don't know what my quote had to do with Godwin's law (feel free to explain).
We're so far down the comment chain though that I don't mind saying that you're coming across as an insufferable cunt who has to be technically correct.
>It kinda does if you're actually trying to get your message across and not just doing this for your own self gratification.
I'd imagine that's the most common use case for HN, indeed.
>I'm done here. Too close to Godwin's law after your last remarks. I don't know what my quote had to do with Godwin's law (feel free to explain).
I pre-emptively addressed this remark in the very comment you're replying to! If you think the WW2 comparison is inappropriate, I'm actually genuinely fascinated and very interested in hearing why.
>We're so far down the comment chain though that I don't mind saying that you're coming across as an insufferable cunt who has to be technically correct.
I gave a perfectly reasonable answer to a question that was asked by another commenter and you attacked me because I ... ? Not sure how that makes me the "insufferable cunt".
If you have a real answer as to why my comment was inappropriate, go ahead and share it. But so far over the course of 4 comments you've been completely unable to do that.
I think you're just being completely unreasonable in demanding that a fundamentally inflammatory topic should be discussed in a non-inflammatory way. That's simply not possible.
Any conversation concerning war is fundamentally inflammatory to some people, at least per the Oxford definition. How could such a topic not arouse angry or violent feelings? Should we not discuss these topics then?
You're an insufferable cunt because you're failing to read tone. Most people would understand that from reading my comments. I guess this is a failure to communicate on my part to you.
You're coming across as someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing. Which I enjoy in many settings (love a good pointless argument in a pub, where nobody wins but both sides rile each other up).
I'm not failing to read tone, I'm just trying to genuinely engage in spite of your trolling.
The criticism pointed at me just seems absurd in a world where it's not unusual for heads of state to announce their intention to cut off the balls of a opposition leader if they can find him, https://x.com/mkainerugaba/status/2013331792506298533
This is the rhetoric being wielded, and it's being wielded by people who do mean what they say. This is the nature of politics being discussed, it seems bizarre to stick your head in the sand and ignore that. The world will not magically become a better place if HN users suddenly decide to pretend that violence does not exist and does not play a significant role in politics.
This is simply what conversations involving armed conflict look like. On HN, we should hopefully still be able to discuss these things from a more intellectually curious point of view.
Instead of saying "you're being obtuse", say "It seems that you're being obtuse here because ..."
> reconsider how you communicate and how you expect others to read it.
I think the problem is firmly on your side. If we're discussing potential approaches to dealing with political leadership that's on track to start a massive war and possibly get millions of people killed, violence is inherently going to feature in those conversations.
Where would you even draw the line? If a hypothetical leader of a country came on the TV suggesting that we should build large camps where we will kill all the jews, would it be okay to shoot them then? What if we replace killing the jews with re-educating gay people?