• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • One behavior is inherently childish. One is not. One is objectively the attitude of an infant and thus does not require the act of infantalization in order to be framed as such.

    No, it isn’t, and this is a subjective opinion on your part. Not everyone agrees with you, so it’s not objective. Even what exactly is ‘childish’ behaviour is subjective, and arguably culturally dependent.

    His behaviour is pretty much by definition, that of an adult. An adult with poor impulse control, poor anger management skills, sure. But childish? That’s a value judgement which contains no insight likely to reach anyone. It adds nothing to the conversation.

    Use less reductionist words to explain why it’s bad.

    Or to rephrase: Linus’ reply isn’t bad because it is childish. All calling it childish, or infantile, communicates is your own judgement.

    Also; describing your judgement as ‘calling out’ - particularly when this is behaviour he has since admitted was poor, and has taken time out to address - just reads like you’re using the language of social justice to justify judgemental language.


  • … he hurt a few people’s fee-fees.

    Way to infantalize the people calling him out while excusing his childish tantrums.

    You’re infantilizing Linus’ expression of anger, just the same as the person you’re replying to is infantilizing people who’re upset by it.

    Either they’re both bad, or they’re both acceptable - or you’re effectively saying that infantilization is fine, but only towards people whose behaviour you disapprove of.



  • Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

    But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.

    If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

    Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.

    Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

    You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.





  • Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.

    Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).