This encompasses 100% of people so you would have been better of leaving it off as it downplays the severity of the situation we are in.
> and when you see someone trying to be specific you confuse it for 'pedantry'.
This is what ~smart people typically go for if one includes too much detail or accuracy in the context.
This encompasses 100% of people so you would have been better of leaving it off as it downplays the severity of the situation we are in.
I didn't say that.
This is what ~smart people typically go for if one includes too much detail or accuracy in the context.
I lost track of what you are trying to say and why, sorry.
That's why I'm complaining.
> I lost track of what you are trying to say and why, sorry.
Well I interpreted your comment as saying that I would accuse someone of pedantry, but it was me who accuses others of doing that (explicitly or implicitly), when someone points out technical errors in their reasoning that are beyond the culturally conditioned thresholds of acceptability.
Extreme detail and attention to correctness when discussing science or computers or software = Good.
Extreme detail and attention to correctness when discussing, say, geopolitics = Bad.
We are taught to think this way, pay attention when reading the newspaper or Internet forums, you can see it everywhere.
Isn't this the same thing?
And so the point isn't lost: I believe this cultural norm to be a substantial cause of the initial complaint.
I've yet to meet a Human for whom down the curve of their position is not ~idiocy, and up the curve is not ~pedantry (or something invalidating of a more absolute view on things).
As long as the only serious problem is those other people, I think we remain trapped in this local maxima.