Literally isn’t. It’s about people having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions and being unwilling to accept others also having differing opinions.
The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to .ml and understand where others stand.
You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.
The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?
I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.
I would love to have an effective and open conversation with you. You mentioned I should try to be more concise and that I seem to be trying to pass classes. Sure, my responses aren’t one-liners at all, but I’m not trying to pass any class. I’m trying to see what we all believe.
Just so we’re on the same page, this conversation started with a comment of yours. It said that “it’s about having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions”. I assumed you meant that .ml users are “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”, given the context of this thread. I could’ve misinterpreted you, but that’s how I took it. I decided to respond to your post, because I don’t see myself as “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”. In response, the only thing you told me was that my response seemed AI-generated. I replied asking you if you could look past your perception of AI-generated content and tell me if I seemed close-minded. You replied saying I should be more concise.
All of this I interpret as if you are not engaging with me in good faith. I could be wrong; communication mishaps happen all the time. In the past, I have misinterpreted people and people have misinterpreted me. It’s also possible you’re having a bad day or something like that. It might even be possible that you think I’m acting in bad faith or something like that. What do you think?
TL;DR: I am happy to do TL;DRs, but I would also like assurance that you will engage with me effectively and openly.
Tbh, it’s just a problem with the whole platform. It’s just inhabited by a bunch of tech nerds who only deal in absolutes and are all incredibly confident in their opinions no matter how detached from reality they are.
Literally isn’t. It’s about people having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions and being unwilling to accept others also having differing opinions.
I’m curious what your response would be to me: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808
Reads like an ai generated response.
The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to
.mland understand where others stand.You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.
The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?
I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.
The best I can do is be present and open.
Try being more concise. You write like someone trying to pass some classes.
Also the Chinese export balance is worrisome and social unrest is inevitable. You need to provide your laborers with goods and services.
I would love to have an effective and open conversation with you. You mentioned I should try to be more concise and that I seem to be trying to pass classes. Sure, my responses aren’t one-liners at all, but I’m not trying to pass any class. I’m trying to see what we all believe.
Just so we’re on the same page, this conversation started with a comment of yours. It said that “it’s about having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions”. I assumed you meant that
.mlusers are “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”, given the context of this thread. I could’ve misinterpreted you, but that’s how I took it. I decided to respond to your post, because I don’t see myself as “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”. In response, the only thing you told me was that my response seemed AI-generated. I replied asking you if you could look past your perception of AI-generated content and tell me if I seemed close-minded. You replied saying I should be more concise.All of this I interpret as if you are not engaging with me in good faith. I could be wrong; communication mishaps happen all the time. In the past, I have misinterpreted people and people have misinterpreted me. It’s also possible you’re having a bad day or something like that. It might even be possible that you think I’m acting in bad faith or something like that. What do you think?
TL;DR: I am happy to do TL;DRs, but I would also like assurance that you will engage with me effectively and openly.
Yeah, liberals do have insane, uncompromising, unrealistic opinions and are very unwilling to accept others having different opinions.
Tbh, it’s just a problem with the whole platform. It’s just inhabited by a bunch of tech nerds who only deal in absolutes and are all incredibly confident in their opinions no matter how detached from reality they are.
Nah. Nerds just like unmoderated forums, as do pathetic Russian propaganda shills.
Man you guys just can’t help but to vilify yourselves.
If the shoe fits 🙃