▲ 1077 ▼ 2hot2handle (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 228 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (12 children) You can do that without calling someone sexist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] moakley@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sometimes people are being sexist. Mansplaining is a real thing that happens. You may not see the need for the word because you personally don't need it, but maybe you can understand that there a lot of people who do need it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I mean sure, but you can't deny it's misused sometimes. I never said it didn't happen at all. Stop reading what I didn't write. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moakley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, it's misused sometimes. And it sounds like you agree that sometimes it's the right word for the situation. If a man inaccurately and smugly trying to correct a female astronaut, punctuating it with "Simple thermo", isn't the right time to use "mansplaining", then when would be? permalink fedilink source parent [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) Sure. But it gives the appearance of sexism. Who gives a fuck if he is being an asshole if you mislabeled the kind of asshole he is. I don't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) You kinda should. The entire value of shaming people is to show a person that somebody else or a group of somebody elses do not approve of their behaviour. If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? Do you think they'll be able to understand what they did wrong? Obviously thats not always relevant, some people just want to mudwrestle and they'll never hear you no matter what you say. It's worth it to be accurate in case they are the type of person who might remotely consider your words though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children) If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? If they were being sexist and you don't point that out, wouldn't that be inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago it would be incomplete, not inaccurate. it is much better to be incomplete than inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, it would. It's also not related to the comment I replied to, in which you stated that you dont care about being accurate when calling somebody out. My point is that you should care about accuracy when youre calling out bad behaviour, I'm not trying to defend Mr "actually it would be spontaneous" from the image permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) Sometimes people are being sexist. Mansplaining is a real thing that happens. You may not see the need for the word because you personally don't need it, but maybe you can understand that there a lot of people who do need it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I mean sure, but you can't deny it's misused sometimes. I never said it didn't happen at all. Stop reading what I didn't write. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moakley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, it's misused sometimes. And it sounds like you agree that sometimes it's the right word for the situation. If a man inaccurately and smugly trying to correct a female astronaut, punctuating it with "Simple thermo", isn't the right time to use "mansplaining", then when would be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I mean sure, but you can't deny it's misused sometimes. I never said it didn't happen at all. Stop reading what I didn't write. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] moakley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, it's misused sometimes. And it sounds like you agree that sometimes it's the right word for the situation. If a man inaccurately and smugly trying to correct a female astronaut, punctuating it with "Simple thermo", isn't the right time to use "mansplaining", then when would be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, it's misused sometimes. And it sounds like you agree that sometimes it's the right word for the situation. If a man inaccurately and smugly trying to correct a female astronaut, punctuating it with "Simple thermo", isn't the right time to use "mansplaining", then when would be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children) Sure. But it gives the appearance of sexism. Who gives a fuck if he is being an asshole if you mislabeled the kind of asshole he is. I don't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) You kinda should. The entire value of shaming people is to show a person that somebody else or a group of somebody elses do not approve of their behaviour. If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? Do you think they'll be able to understand what they did wrong? Obviously thats not always relevant, some people just want to mudwrestle and they'll never hear you no matter what you say. It's worth it to be accurate in case they are the type of person who might remotely consider your words though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children) If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? If they were being sexist and you don't point that out, wouldn't that be inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago it would be incomplete, not inaccurate. it is much better to be incomplete than inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, it would. It's also not related to the comment I replied to, in which you stated that you dont care about being accurate when calling somebody out. My point is that you should care about accuracy when youre calling out bad behaviour, I'm not trying to defend Mr "actually it would be spontaneous" from the image permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (7 children) You kinda should. The entire value of shaming people is to show a person that somebody else or a group of somebody elses do not approve of their behaviour. If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? Do you think they'll be able to understand what they did wrong? Obviously thats not always relevant, some people just want to mudwrestle and they'll never hear you no matter what you say. It's worth it to be accurate in case they are the type of person who might remotely consider your words though permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children) If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? If they were being sexist and you don't point that out, wouldn't that be inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago it would be incomplete, not inaccurate. it is much better to be incomplete than inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, it would. It's also not related to the comment I replied to, in which you stated that you dont care about being accurate when calling somebody out. My point is that you should care about accuracy when youre calling out bad behaviour, I'm not trying to defend Mr "actually it would be spontaneous" from the image permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children) If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? If they were being sexist and you don't point that out, wouldn't that be inaccurate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago it would be incomplete, not inaccurate. it is much better to be incomplete than inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, it would. It's also not related to the comment I replied to, in which you stated that you dont care about being accurate when calling somebody out. My point is that you should care about accuracy when youre calling out bad behaviour, I'm not trying to defend Mr "actually it would be spontaneous" from the image permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago it would be incomplete, not inaccurate. it is much better to be incomplete than inaccurate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, it would. It's also not related to the comment I replied to, in which you stated that you dont care about being accurate when calling somebody out. My point is that you should care about accuracy when youre calling out bad behaviour, I'm not trying to defend Mr "actually it would be spontaneous" from the image permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn't. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I'm saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate. One's experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don't feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I'm saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It's not about making a value judgement on a person, its about calling out a specific behaviour. As a thought experiment, would you have engaged with me if I came at you like "you're an idiot" (making a value judgement on you as a person) rather than specifically addressing the behaviour you exhibited that I disagree with? To be clear, I have no negative opinions of you and I absolutely do not think you're an idiot. That was posed purely as a hypothetical to illustrate the difference in communication effectiveness between making a value judgement about a person and addressing a specific behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, "I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist." Then... well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Indeed, the behaviour does need to be examined. You are actively confusing that examination if you are inaccurate when calling out the behaviour (again, with no intention of defending the situation in the OP, purely disagreeing with your "I dont care about being accurate when calling people out" statements) permalink fedilink source parent