stevedice comments on Anon asks out a girl

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

Then I would tell you you're not original, we've all seen that "data" and it doesn't say what you think it says so you can't read. I'd also remind you reactions like that are why you're single.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Then I would tell you you’re not original

Is this a bad time to point out that "are the lesbians okay" yields a paltry 172 results on Google (and on top of that, the first page of results is mostly not people using it the way the hypothetical in my analogy does)?

Seems much more original than most things you can find online, objectively speaking.

"data"

Poisoning the well. State what makes it illegitimate, with specificity, if you can.

it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read.

Even if I did misinterpret any given source of information, calling me illiterate for doing so is comically over-the-top cruel. For shame.

I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.

The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she'd recognize

Anyway, if you'd like to at least pretend to be someone who's interested in more than creating an illiterate unlovable strawman to insult for your own ego's sake, here is my response to a far less caustic retort.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

And this just cements the fact that you can't read. You're not original, because your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.

The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she'd recognize

And you're also delusional. I'm not surprised.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.

Show me the alleged debunking. Claiming it exists while seething at me is not convincing. If it's the same argument made by that other person, I already broke it down and showed how it doesn't hold water, so make sure not to repeat it.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's ironically you that can't read by your definition of literacy, because you failed to understand that it was a hypothetical analogy to begin with, that works just fine even if said study didn't even exist in the first place. The actual point all along is that it's wrong, morally and practically, to generalize that way about the entirety of any demographic.

But it seems all you've demonstrated proficiency in is slinging clumsy, unoriginal (more irony!) barbs.

And you’re also delusional. I’m not surprised.

You know what's extra ironic about your reply? It was literally my partner getting my attention for a moment that broke my train of thought and resulted in me not completing that sentence. Of course, now it's best not to fix it until after I share this exchange with her, it'll make her reading this part extra amusing. :)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments