Good grief, I was not making fun of them. I feel like there’s either some trolling or some sort of a reading comprehension deficit going on here. And judging by the comment scores, I’m not alone in that suspicion.
And tho you may really like to watch upvotes/downvotes, I don’t care about them. So you were being “sarcastic” when talking about the people who are on social security, yet in the same comment you weren’t being sarcastic when talking about current workers.
In case you’re not trolling, I would like to point something out to you:
The up-/downvote ratio here probably reflects the fact that onlookers don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. It should act as a wake-up call to you, an indicator that you should re-consider what the other person is saying and ask yourself “Am I misunderstanding their point? Could this be interpreted differently?”.
You may find that you are disagreeing with them over something they never said or intended to say.
Ok, I’ll put it clearly: You’re wrongly interpreting the person you’re arguing with as saying something you disagree with. They never meant what you’re claiming they meant, and they’ve said as much.
When you keep trying to nail them to the wall, it comes off as being disingenuous, and just looking for a fight, even though you don’t really disagree with the OP on anything related to what they’ve posted in this thread.
You’re being downvoted because everyone else can see this, and think you’re trolling because you don’t seem to see it, even though it’s obvious to everyone else. In fact, it’s so obvious that people probably think it’s more likely that you’re trolling than that you genuinely don’t understand that you have no disagreement with the OP here.
You’re wrongly interpreting the person you’re arguing with as saying something you disagree with.
But he admited he was being sarcastic in that part of this post. So in one post, he is sarcastic in the first part, not sarcastic in the last part. Is that really the way to do sarcasm?
So since he didn’t but the “/s”, which he admitted to, and was sarcastic in the first part, but not the second half, the is it so hard to understand that someone may not think he was being clear?
That doesn’t make me “not arguing in good faith,” It’s me misunderstanding because of the we worded things–which he admitted to.
I haven’t tried to “nail them to the wall” at all.
so I don’t understand why you are going on and on. Move on already.
In fact, it’s so obvious that people probably think it’s more likely that you’re trolling
Let’s fucking think about this: Would trolling really be me misunderstanding someones fucking sarcasm? Do you think that’s the definition of trolling?! come on…
I was being sarcastic. I didn’t think the /s was necessary. But apparently I was wrong.
So were you or were you not making fun of people on social security? Who, by the way, aren’t all old. Clarify.
Good grief, I was not making fun of them. I feel like there’s either some trolling or some sort of a reading comprehension deficit going on here. And judging by the comment scores, I’m not alone in that suspicion.
Ok, then clarify.
And tho you may really like to watch upvotes/downvotes, I don’t care about them. So you were being “sarcastic” when talking about the people who are on social security, yet in the same comment you weren’t being sarcastic when talking about current workers.
Is that what you are trying to get me to believe?
In case you’re not trolling, I would like to point something out to you:
The up-/downvote ratio here probably reflects the fact that onlookers don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. It should act as a wake-up call to you, an indicator that you should re-consider what the other person is saying and ask yourself “Am I misunderstanding their point? Could this be interpreted differently?”.
You may find that you are disagreeing with them over something they never said or intended to say.
That doesn’t concern me. Just because Lemmy doesn’t believe something I say, doesn’t make it false.
Why don’t you tell me what I have said that seems to be not in good faith that I should wake up to.
Ok, I’ll put it clearly: You’re wrongly interpreting the person you’re arguing with as saying something you disagree with. They never meant what you’re claiming they meant, and they’ve said as much.
When you keep trying to nail them to the wall, it comes off as being disingenuous, and just looking for a fight, even though you don’t really disagree with the OP on anything related to what they’ve posted in this thread.
You’re being downvoted because everyone else can see this, and think you’re trolling because you don’t seem to see it, even though it’s obvious to everyone else. In fact, it’s so obvious that people probably think it’s more likely that you’re trolling than that you genuinely don’t understand that you have no disagreement with the OP here.
But he admited he was being sarcastic in that part of this post. So in one post, he is sarcastic in the first part, not sarcastic in the last part. Is that really the way to do sarcasm?
So since he didn’t but the “/s”, which he admitted to, and was sarcastic in the first part, but not the second half, the is it so hard to understand that someone may not think he was being clear?
That doesn’t make me “not arguing in good faith,” It’s me misunderstanding because of the we worded things–which he admitted to.
I haven’t tried to “nail them to the wall” at all.
so I don’t understand why you are going on and on. Move on already.
Let’s fucking think about this: Would trolling really be me misunderstanding someones fucking sarcasm? Do you think that’s the definition of trolling?! come on…
Trolling it is then. Okay I’m done here. This is a waste of time.
because u got called out
Nah, it’s because you’re UniversalMonk.
?