One is actively requesting avoidance and the other merely suggesting ulterior paths. It’s the difference between someone saying, “punch that fuck in the face!” and, “words will do you no good with this one”.
Sahara is saying not to date republicans, and not to let them trick you. I’m saying the same thing.
If you meet someone who, presumably like you, absolutely will not say anything until you do, then the both of you should write it down on a card and reveal them at the same time.
Or, you should say something about building a border wall. See if they bite.
Or, you should take them to see the Barbie movie. See if they shift in their chair too much.
Like, there are solutions to this problem, and I feel like you’re just not willing to see them.
As a corollary, imagine you’re gay in the 1960s. You can’t tell anyone you’re gay because you’ll get beaten in an alley. But, you would still like to find other gay people. How would you do this?
I am not dismissing the solutions. I am arguing against the original phrasing of the suggestion. If you rephrase it to mean something that wasn’t originally said, then of course you won’t understand the implications of the much more poorly stated version…
For your own safety you should really ask about their political ideology before meeting them. Make sure to not let them fool you either, never tell them yours first.
Ask them before meeting (so your suggestion of writing on cards is totally irrelevant), but don’t tell them yours… If all good people followed that advice, then no good people will tell others their leanings first, and since no one is telling their leanings, no one would agree to meet.
It’s right there, in two fucking sentences. How is this so difficult to understand?
(so your suggestion of writing on cards is totally irrelevant)
No, not literally… Okay.
MotoAsh, you have to engage people in better faith.
“Make sure to not let them fool you” is a goal, “never tell them yours first” is just a strategy being offered to meet that goal. I understand the implications of this “poorly stated” version just fine: this isn’t programming, you can break the strategy’s rules sometimes. I trust people taking this advice to apply good judgement.
The only reason to argue with Sahara here in the way that you are is if you think they’re actually trying to trick people into being lonelier via some kind of yugioh trap card logic. Do you get the impression that they’re trying to trick people into being lonelier via yugioh trap card logic?
How are you this confused over two sentences? You are seriously braindead…
English isn’t programming that’s why PHRASING is important. If you cannot understand that basic, utterly foundational tenant of communication, then there truly is no hope for you.
Nobody should be required to understand what is meant by a poorly phrased sentiment. Good communication is about what messages can be received, not about what was intended. It’s exactly why professional writers say to avoid idioms. It doesn’t matter what is meant. It matters what can be received.
It is wholly on you if you continue to fail to understand this utterly basic lesson of clear communication. One more time just to be clear: I am not against the sentiment of what was said. I am against phrasing it in such flippantly silly ways.
I’m not the one confused, I understood Sahara just fine. I’m more confused why we’re 10 comments deep into, essentially, Sahara’s choice to use the word “never.”
I’m asking this seriously: how do you handle sarcasm? Or hyperbole?
I mean, I don’t think it is.
One is actively requesting avoidance and the other merely suggesting ulterior paths. It’s the difference between someone saying, “punch that fuck in the face!” and, “words will do you no good with this one”.
I am entirely lost.
Sahara is saying not to date republicans, and not to let them trick you. I’m saying the same thing.
If you meet someone who, presumably like you, absolutely will not say anything until you do, then the both of you should write it down on a card and reveal them at the same time.
Or, you should say something about building a border wall. See if they bite.
Or, you should take them to see the Barbie movie. See if they shift in their chair too much.
Like, there are solutions to this problem, and I feel like you’re just not willing to see them.
As a corollary, imagine you’re gay in the 1960s. You can’t tell anyone you’re gay because you’ll get beaten in an alley. But, you would still like to find other gay people. How would you do this?
I am not dismissing the solutions. I am arguing against the original phrasing of the suggestion. If you rephrase it to mean something that wasn’t originally said, then of course you won’t understand the implications of the much more poorly stated version…
Ask them before meeting (so your suggestion of writing on cards is totally irrelevant), but don’t tell them yours… If all good people followed that advice, then no good people will tell others their leanings first, and since no one is telling their leanings, no one would agree to meet.
It’s right there, in two fucking sentences. How is this so difficult to understand?
No, not literally… Okay.
MotoAsh, you have to engage people in better faith.
“Make sure to not let them fool you” is a goal, “never tell them yours first” is just a strategy being offered to meet that goal. I understand the implications of this “poorly stated” version just fine: this isn’t programming, you can break the strategy’s rules sometimes. I trust people taking this advice to apply good judgement.
The only reason to argue with Sahara here in the way that you are is if you think they’re actually trying to trick people into being lonelier via some kind of yugioh trap card logic. Do you get the impression that they’re trying to trick people into being lonelier via yugioh trap card logic?
How are you this confused over two sentences? You are seriously braindead…
English isn’t programming that’s why PHRASING is important. If you cannot understand that basic, utterly foundational tenant of communication, then there truly is no hope for you.
Nobody should be required to understand what is meant by a poorly phrased sentiment. Good communication is about what messages can be received, not about what was intended. It’s exactly why professional writers say to avoid idioms. It doesn’t matter what is meant. It matters what can be received.
It is wholly on you if you continue to fail to understand this utterly basic lesson of clear communication. One more time just to be clear: I am not against the sentiment of what was said. I am against phrasing it in such flippantly silly ways.
I’m not the one confused, I understood Sahara just fine. I’m more confused why we’re 10 comments deep into, essentially, Sahara’s choice to use the word “never.”
I’m asking this seriously: how do you handle sarcasm? Or hyperbole?