If people were absolutely literal and said exactly what they meant the world would be a better place.
You mean, if someone is misinformed about a thing and asks if they are indeed misinformed, someone should come along and say "you are misinformed"?
Is that the sort of thing you are talking about?
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people just took what others said literally. It isn't an issue with the communicator, it is an issue with the communicatee.
If people were absolutely literal and said exactly what they meant the world would be a better place.
Sounds boring, count me out of that world...
Exactly my point, that's not the world we live in.
There was context and meaning behind his comment.
He didn't outright say that it's ok for him to gaslight and use terrible argument practices, but that's what he was implying. And ironically he tries to convince me that that's not what he was implying.
It's the classic "I didn't actually use those words" excuse.
His comment by itself implies nothing yes. But when you add the context behind it it implies everything.
He didn't outright say that it's ok for him to gaslight and use terrible argument practices, but that's what he was implying. And ironically he tries to convince me that that's not what he was implying.
It's the classic "I didn't actually use those words" excuse.
Not at all.
I say what I want to say. I am blunt. Very, very blunt.
That irony you claim to have seen, that is on you. I didn't put it there. If I wanted to say what you think I was trying to say, I would have just said it, because I am blunt like that.
Put another way, I didn't use those words because those words were not what I was trying to say. If those words were what I was trying to say, I would have used those words. However, I didn't, I used the words I used, because the words I used were what I was trying to say.
I am also unapologetic, as Vhaeyne pointed out. And I am unapologetic about being unapologetic.
It's the classic "I didn't actually use those words" excuse.
His comment by itself implies nothing yes. But when you add the context behind it it implies everything.
IDK, I have been in the same situation on here a few times. Where people pull more out of my words than I said. It just makes it harder to keep the argument on track.
You liked a comment from neuroguy:
I'm very familiar with Noaani haha. He has a lot of good points often times, but he also literally cannot admit being wrong (like never) and often falls back on semantics or strawmen and drags the conversation very very far from the initial point to avoid being wrong. I don't try to hold it against him, I agree with a lot of his opinions and a lot of them are well thought out, I just hate how he communicates but that's quite off topic for the thread... in any case, good convo, I will bow out though. Cheers.
If you would have taken those words to heart maybe y'all would still be on the topic of the argument itself.
IDK, I have been in the same situation on here a few times. Where people pull more out of my words than I said. It just makes it harder to keep the argument on track.
I always try to use my words the best way possible to avoid these type of thing and for the ideas i want to share to be more precisely delivered.
That's why i always give people i don't know the benefit of doubt for them to better explain themselves.
Comments
You mean, if someone is misinformed about a thing and asks if they are indeed misinformed, someone should come along and say "you are misinformed"?
Is that the sort of thing you are talking about?
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if people just took what others said literally. It isn't an issue with the communicator, it is an issue with the communicatee.
Exactly my point, that's not the world we live in.
There was context and meaning behind his comment.
He didn't outright say that it's ok for him to gaslight and use terrible argument practices, but that's what he was implying. And ironically he tries to convince me that that's not what he was implying.
It's the classic "I didn't actually use those words" excuse.
His comment by itself implies nothing yes. But when you add the context behind it it implies everything.
Not at all.
I say what I want to say. I am blunt. Very, very blunt.
That irony you claim to have seen, that is on you. I didn't put it there. If I wanted to say what you think I was trying to say, I would have just said it, because I am blunt like that.
Put another way, I didn't use those words because those words were not what I was trying to say. If those words were what I was trying to say, I would have used those words. However, I didn't, I used the words I used, because the words I used were what I was trying to say.
I am also unapologetic, as Vhaeyne pointed out. And I am unapologetic about being unapologetic.
IDK, I have been in the same situation on here a few times. Where people pull more out of my words than I said. It just makes it harder to keep the argument on track.
You liked a comment from neuroguy:
If you would have taken those words to heart maybe y'all would still be on the topic of the argument itself.
You do know how he do...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I always try to use my words the best way possible to avoid these type of thing and for the ideas i want to share to be more precisely delivered.
That's why i always give people i don't know the benefit of doubt for them to better explain themselves.
Aren't we all sinners?