▲ 2065 ▼ Stuck in the middle with you (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 293 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (8 children) Is it incorrect? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 2 years ago In the sense that I don't believe the people described exist in any significant quantity, yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (6 children) there is no statement there so I don't know what you mean by "incorrect". all i see is someone who doesn't know how people use tldr. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Or someone who knows very well people use tldr to skip reading the post and you are annoyed that he caught you being that lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) valuing my time isn't lazy. if you can't summarize your post you're probably shit at writing and the article is not worth the time in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) not trying to be combative, but this grumpy response over a 5min read does illustrate something and i hope its trolling tbh. the tldr summary that is triggering here is kinda a key point of the article - people looking for a quick interaction and then moving on. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Was it too long for you and you didn't read it? In that case ....This blog post is not for you. That's what the question mark does. It marks a question. RTFA? RTFA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I didn't read it because the tldr is retarded. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 2 years ago In the sense that I don't believe the people described exist in any significant quantity, yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (6 children) there is no statement there so I don't know what you mean by "incorrect". all i see is someone who doesn't know how people use tldr. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Or someone who knows very well people use tldr to skip reading the post and you are annoyed that he caught you being that lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) valuing my time isn't lazy. if you can't summarize your post you're probably shit at writing and the article is not worth the time in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) not trying to be combative, but this grumpy response over a 5min read does illustrate something and i hope its trolling tbh. the tldr summary that is triggering here is kinda a key point of the article - people looking for a quick interaction and then moving on. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Was it too long for you and you didn't read it? In that case ....This blog post is not for you. That's what the question mark does. It marks a question. RTFA? RTFA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I didn't read it because the tldr is retarded. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Or someone who knows very well people use tldr to skip reading the post and you are annoyed that he caught you being that lazy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) valuing my time isn't lazy. if you can't summarize your post you're probably shit at writing and the article is not worth the time in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) not trying to be combative, but this grumpy response over a 5min read does illustrate something and i hope its trolling tbh. the tldr summary that is triggering here is kinda a key point of the article - people looking for a quick interaction and then moving on. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) valuing my time isn't lazy. if you can't summarize your post you're probably shit at writing and the article is not worth the time in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) not trying to be combative, but this grumpy response over a 5min read does illustrate something and i hope its trolling tbh. the tldr summary that is triggering here is kinda a key point of the article - people looking for a quick interaction and then moving on. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lightsblinken@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) not trying to be combative, but this grumpy response over a 5min read does illustrate something and i hope its trolling tbh. the tldr summary that is triggering here is kinda a key point of the article - people looking for a quick interaction and then moving on. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pyre@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago this is what i mean by shit at writing. this fails to be the point of the article unless the article is suggesting people are moving on to quick interactions because they are deliberately being moved away from longer articles by the authors that suggest these articles aren't worth their time... is the point of the article that longer content is belligerent and condescending? I don't think it's actually getting any point across. it's just a boomer who thinks no one has anything better to do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Was it too long for you and you didn't read it? In that case ....This blog post is not for you. That's what the question mark does. It marks a question. RTFA? RTFA! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I didn't read it because the tldr is retarded. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago I didn't read it because the tldr is retarded. permalink fedilink source parent
