Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

andrewsucks t1_iycndxk wrote

Reply to comment by xDocFearx in Regency Wal-Mart, yet another shooting. by AlreadyShrugging

Selling drugs to make ends meet, meeting strangers in Walmart parking lots to get a fix.

Just say what you mean instead of asking leading questions.

18

8bitmullet t1_iycpwsi wrote

Or maybe they actually want to know the answer and you're trying to play mind reader.

−7

Danger-Moose t1_iycr09n wrote

Judging by the follow up question, it would appear op was correct in their assumption.

3

8bitmullet t1_iycre08 wrote

But they hadn't read that yet, so there was insufficient evidence at the time.

Are we just going to adopt and enable a cynical, guilty until proven innocent attitude here?

−11

andrewsucks t1_iycrp1k wrote

The question was clearly disingenuous to me. If it wasn't for you, that's fine.

15

8bitmullet t1_iycsm3x wrote

As one who has asked sincere questions before and had others draw the same conclusion as you, I'm here to suggest a higher threshold for determining one's inner motivations.

−6

andrewsucks t1_iycudm8 wrote

First I looked at the comment, the quotatation marks immediately make me think sarcasm. Next, I took a cursory glance at his profile before I replied. He was active in communities that are filled with assholes and is regularly downvoted for acting like an asshole.

Then I commented.

I am perfectly comfortable with my threshold. I am sorry for what you experienced, but you are making assumptions here.

12

8bitmullet t1_iycycrf wrote

So by “the question was clearly disingenuous” you actually mean “I took the time to look through their post history?”

I suggest communicating more clearly in the future, and not expect people to have information they are dependent on you to share.

−2

andrewsucks t1_iycyqfh wrote

I wasn't talking to you in the first place. It's not my job to make every comment understandable to you. You made this about you.

The question was clearly disingenuous. I just did my due diligence to be sure. Geeze you just want to argue.

4

8bitmullet t1_iyd3l3z wrote

It doesn’t matter who you were talking to.

You had the opportunity here to share some crucial context with every reader (that you ALSO did your due diligence and looked in their post history), which totally changes things, but you didn’t.

Why? Did you choose not to? Did you forget? Maybe you were feeling lazy. Maybe you’re making it up now after the fact. I don’t know, but one thing is for certain… that you failed to communicate the evidence you had clearly when given the opportunity.

So, ironically, you’re proving my point for me. Getting sufficient evidence (from you) leads to better decisions (from readers).

If you want to show me how I am wrong, I’m all ears. If you want to take responsibility and admit that you didn’t communicate clearly to everyone reading at first, I would respect you for it. But your last comment makes it look like you want to dodge the points I am making, and degrade the conversation into personal insults.

−1

Danger-Moose t1_iycrff3 wrote

Seemed to work fine.

6

8bitmullet t1_iycs54m wrote

So does a broken clock twice per day. Of course if we assume the worst about someone and their intentions we'll be right some of the time.

The collateral damage, of course, being that the internet gets shittier and more negative in general as a result.

This one interaction does not change the general rule...getting sufficient evidence before drawing conclusions leads to better decisions.

Far too many people take a hint or a shred and call it sufficient evidence. I am suggesting a higher threshold.

−1