I never said you didn't. I said that you were misreading me. We could speculate as to what could have caused such a poor reading of such a simple point, but there are so many juicy possibilities, it's hard to pick.
> you immediately start to lash out
This is upside down - you immediately got snotty when I explained that the point you first made was in no way relevant to what I was saying.
I, on the other hand, accorded you far more patience than your low-effort misreading warranted. I attempted repeatedly to explain where you were confused, only indulging fully in riling you up (with great success, apparently) at the very end there.
And to be frank I didn't feel like I was "lashing out", as I didn't feel sincerely emotionally involved to begin with. Your original argument was laughable, and the way you immediately switched to sniping then came as no surprise.
What has happened is you jumped in with some irrelevant anecdotes, and then refused to back down when it was pointed out, and instead chose to invent a fantasy scenario where I'm making a point that I at no stage make. I've asked you to quote the moment where I say anything more than what I've now repeatedly explained to you - and you won't do it.
So no, as much as it would please you to imagine it to be true, this:
> it was pointed out how stupid what you wrote was
Has not occurred, except in the fantasy argument in your head. I don't mean that something has been pointed out and I disagree, I mean that precisely nothing has been pointed out, you've made no response, instead maintaining I'm making a point I never did.
Outside of your fantasy, then, on the off-chance that you want to step back into reality, I've made the following point, which I invite you to actually respond to instead of getting so terribly worked up: The word "cunt" is used very differently in the US than in various other parts of the Anglosphere, including but not limited to Ireland, England, Scotland, and Australia.
None of that means Matt Trout was using the word in a friendly fashion, and none of that means that the OP in this case wasn't being poorly treated by Mr. Trout.
It doesn't mean that there can't be nuance and variation in those regions of the Anglosphere I mentioned, either. For example, if you personally don't use it much, that would be - for the purposes of this point - of no relevance. Your previous monarch Queen Elizabeth probably didn't use it much either, and that, also, is of no relevance.
> No wonder you’re on a throwaway account tbh.
The real wonder is how someone on a non-throwaway account can utter such inanities and remain so unabashedly foolhardy about it.
> act like a gigantic cunt
You must have really had a hard time in the O-levels to have taken my comment so badly, lashing out with profanities and everything. My oh my. Where's that British decency and propriety the world knows so well?
Writing advice from some pleb with the English comprehension ability of a garden gate, who probably wrote a story about his pet dog to scrape a pass in his O-levels - truly, our civilisation descends but deeper into the abyss
No no, there's a very good reason people might think that! It's called poor engagement with the written word. Another way to refer to it would be making ungrounded assumptions and then acting like it's the agree-upon reality. Very common nowadays.
I'd like to take responsibility for your incorrect reading of my comments, but it would unfortunately make no sense.
I implore you to take a break from the insinuations and instead quote directly any part of any of my comments that shows me saying what you believed me to be saying. You won't be able to, because it simply didn't happen.
The word cunt has radically different patterns of use in the USA vs in UK/AUS/IE/NZ. More cultural knowledge is useful and good. It's perfectly plausible that OP was unaware of that fact, and I therefore thought it could be useful knowledge, for OP and anyone else, regardless of the original anecdote, but possibly related to the original anecdote. That's for OP to decide, I don't know the details.
> Just like how they refer to anything left of oligarchy as "communism"
To the left of oligarchy? I thought it was anything to the left of getting hit repeatedly in the head with a hammer that they labelled as communism? There must have been a massive leftward shift in society since I last checked the news!
I didn't comment on OP's story of being called a cunt, nor claim that they were friends, nor make any guesses about how the word in the original story was employed. From the other comments in the thread, it seems it very well could have been meant offensively in this case - but I wasn't commenting about that.
But anyway, that hardly matters - yes, I am indeed dead wrong in the made up argument you're having about the thing no-one said.
We don't call each other cunt that much, but of course we do it now and again with a smile on our face. Right.
My point was simply that the word is much more common in places like the UK and Australia, to the point where being called that once ever is very far away from my experience, enough to be quite noteworthy. A point which your comment literally confirms.
And, as everyone is rushing to point out, yes, it can be used offensively, if used a certain way. What is this apparent difficulty accepting that words have multiple uses, even sometimes the opposite thing. English is a very contextual language, tone and intonation and familiarity and etc matter hugely.
For example, your last point - calling a woman a cunt can of course be sexist, but what if you and the woman for whatever reason both decide that you like calling each other a cunt? If you think that doesn't happen in the world, in respectful and mutually caring relationships and friendships, you are mistaken. Some people simply enjoy breaking taboos, it can be healthy and playful.
I'm not falling for any stereotypes. I'm responding to a post where someone said they'd been called that word once in their life. This surprised me, as a non-American very used to the use of that word.
As an Australian, how many times have you been called the word? In how many types of context?
It can be extremely offensive, used a certain way, yes. And it can be absolutely breezy, used another way. And context usually makes it absolutely clear, as in, there's almost never any ambiguity. Right?
I know you wouldn't use it straight away in the British isles without first establishing context and familiarity, sure. But the comment I responded to said they'd only been called that once. This is culturally a world apart from countries in which the word can and regularly is used in a friendly, playful, lighthearted way.
In Australia it's even more common, and less familiarity is required before employing it. Still, of course, one has to be careful in some contexts. This isn't relevant to the point I'm making.
Just a quick word of public interest - there are countries where the "c" word is really quite a normal word amongst friends and acquaintances, male and female. When you say that you've only ever been called that once, you maybe don't realise how much cultural information you're revealing. Seriously, look up something about the use of the word in Australia, for example. Your eyes might very well be opened.
I never said you didn't. I said that you were misreading me. We could speculate as to what could have caused such a poor reading of such a simple point, but there are so many juicy possibilities, it's hard to pick.
> you immediately start to lash out
This is upside down - you immediately got snotty when I explained that the point you first made was in no way relevant to what I was saying.
I, on the other hand, accorded you far more patience than your low-effort misreading warranted. I attempted repeatedly to explain where you were confused, only indulging fully in riling you up (with great success, apparently) at the very end there.
And to be frank I didn't feel like I was "lashing out", as I didn't feel sincerely emotionally involved to begin with. Your original argument was laughable, and the way you immediately switched to sniping then came as no surprise.
What has happened is you jumped in with some irrelevant anecdotes, and then refused to back down when it was pointed out, and instead chose to invent a fantasy scenario where I'm making a point that I at no stage make. I've asked you to quote the moment where I say anything more than what I've now repeatedly explained to you - and you won't do it.
So no, as much as it would please you to imagine it to be true, this:
> it was pointed out how stupid what you wrote was
Has not occurred, except in the fantasy argument in your head. I don't mean that something has been pointed out and I disagree, I mean that precisely nothing has been pointed out, you've made no response, instead maintaining I'm making a point I never did.
Outside of your fantasy, then, on the off-chance that you want to step back into reality, I've made the following point, which I invite you to actually respond to instead of getting so terribly worked up: The word "cunt" is used very differently in the US than in various other parts of the Anglosphere, including but not limited to Ireland, England, Scotland, and Australia.
None of that means Matt Trout was using the word in a friendly fashion, and none of that means that the OP in this case wasn't being poorly treated by Mr. Trout.
It doesn't mean that there can't be nuance and variation in those regions of the Anglosphere I mentioned, either. For example, if you personally don't use it much, that would be - for the purposes of this point - of no relevance. Your previous monarch Queen Elizabeth probably didn't use it much either, and that, also, is of no relevance.
> No wonder you’re on a throwaway account tbh.
The real wonder is how someone on a non-throwaway account can utter such inanities and remain so unabashedly foolhardy about it.
> act like a gigantic cunt
You must have really had a hard time in the O-levels to have taken my comment so badly, lashing out with profanities and everything. My oh my. Where's that British decency and propriety the world knows so well?
And what would Matt Trout say, I wonder!