I see where you're coming from, but I also think it's okay to infer people's intent from their statements. In this instance, I feel like the "effects of immigration on the US economy" and "the impact of European migration on Native Americans" are so loosely related that dragging a discussion of one to the other really has to be intentional.

Though, I agree obtuse is probably a poor choice of wording, perhaps I should have said persnickety.

> perhaps I should have said persnickety.

Or maybe just debate in a way such that the strength of your argument is not dependent on your choice of insult?

> I stop reading immediately

Intention can be inferred; when the stranger is being intentionally obtuse, they aren't being "open".

Let me clarify: when I see "you're being intentionally obtuse", I read "you are not just stupid, you're stupid on purpose". Because that's exactly what it is: a next level insult disguised under slightly fancier words.

*Obtuse - Synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;

Needless to say, I have no patience for those kinds of insults.

> Intention can be inferred

Sure. And when you're talking to strangers, your inferences of intention will be wrong more often than not.

"You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.

"You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur

Hopefully you can see the difference.

> I read "you are not just stupid, you're stupid on purpose"

I think that's right, but without using the insult "stupid", it says the same thing. But an insult has no content, where as this does i.e "you are misunderstanding on purpose"

A constructive criticism can be 'insulting', but this isn't the same as a pure insult.

> "You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.

Is this not the same as "you're being intentionally obtuse"?

> "You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur

Because it uses the word "dumbass", which is an insulting label rather than a description of behaviour. But " intentionally obtuse" is a description of behaviour also, and is also as objective as "avoiding my question" in context.

It's only a non-sequitur if you misunderstand what it means in context. I think "you're being intentionally obtuse" would be fairly clear in context?

None of what you've said would make any sense for anyone who agrees with the list of synonyms for "Obtuse" which I posted in my previous comment.

Those synonyms are from a dictionary, and they are all insults.

So I have to conclude that either:

- You have a radically different definition of "obtuse" which you somehow consider a non-insult and which is non-standard usage

- You're intentionally beating around the bush in order to avoid admitting to understand the difference between an insult and a constructive criticism :)

These are just my two hypothesis, but if you have others, I'd love to hear them.

The meaning of a word comes from context, with a thesaurus you are meant to pick the correct word based on intended or derived meaning. The "synonyms" are not synonymous with all interpretations of a word. You can agree on a list of possible synonyms without fixing the definition.

The definition:

1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

> So I have to conclude..

hypothesis three: your argument wrt synonyms is incorrect. People may dislike being called "obtuse" but it is not, by standard, an insult.