• LinkOpensChest.wav
    link
    110 months ago

    That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”

    Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?

    I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.

    • @irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      810 months ago

      They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position

      • LinkOpensChest.wav
        link
        110 months ago

        it was a little inaccurate

        It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.

        • @irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          310 months ago

          It was, because like I said, it is ideological. You said it wasn’t. After I’ve explained my point, you can’t just say “nuh uh”.

          • LinkOpensChest.wav
            link
            110 months ago

            What?? You need to go back and re-read who said what. I said it is ideological. It’s the other guy who said that it’s not.

            Are … you replying to the wrong user? Oh gods, do you think I"m … him? 🤮

              • LinkOpensChest.wav
                link
                210 months ago

                It’s okay. In retrospect, I wasn’t called on to be so aggressive in my response to him. I should have just immediately blocked and moved on, but I let it get under my skin.