Asklemmy

43945 readers

627 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

109

What word or term annonys you? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

370 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Please don't think I'm here to complain about rizz or skibidi toilet etc. Thats all fine by me.

The term I dislike strongly is 'eeeh' before you make a statement disagreeing with someone. (This is over text only). Now maybe I've been pavloved bc it's always used by someone disagreeing. But I'm happy with people disagreeing with me normally its just the 'eeeh' or 'erm' that annoys me.

So what's a random term that annoys you?

PS. Saying "eeeh actually 'eeh' is a perfectly fine term" would be a ridiculously easy joke and I will judge you for making it. And I know atleast one person will. Especially bow that I've said all this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

My dude, I'm agreeing with you

Edit: effectively I was saying that I agree with you that there seems to be a particular kind of person who is overly contrarian, very loud and impossible to have productive discussions with.

I felt like the wheelchair example you picked was a great example of how this happens "in the wild". I wanted to build on your comment by using that example to elaborate on how these contrarian types cause harm, even if they might seem to be concerned and well-intentioned. I found the wheelchair example to be a good one because it is actually something that I've seen happen multiple times.

I feel that your reply is an unfair characterisation of my comment. Given how the internet's communication norms can prime us to read and respond to things in an overly adversarial manner (especially as it's clear from your original comment that you've got way too much experience with silly argumentative types, so I sympathise), I am hoping that your response was based on a misinterpretation of my comment and/or me being insufficiently clear in what I originally wrote (apologies if so).