[R]Trolling in What are your pronouns

[Heloin]

No, you stated that you stopped helping her when she was rude. If you did you didn't initially state that you had.


You likely don't based on your still posting here complaining about it but I couldn't be certain.


If that's what you argued then you didn't argue it well. If the person you told a story about ever existed and this isn't just a colourful metaphor.


It's less that and more I think you likely don't treat others with the common decency you pretend to care about.

"after she scolded me, my goodwill was through" =/= my assistance stopped.
Goodwill is about readiness, reluctance, and anger.

"I couldn´t be certain"
Yet you asserted my position. Therein lies the root of all mischaracterisations you made about me and my arguments.
Therein, too, lies the bad attitude: it is assumed that anything other than self-flagellating readiness to divine the correct pronoun is indicative of a lack of respect / refusal. Things just aren´t that balck-and-white.

"You didn´t argue well"
Yes, I made a mistake in assuming good faith on the part of those who´d read my answer.

"Colourfull metaphor"
Your refusal to accept reality as such is becoming a persistent pattern.

"You likely don´t treat"
"You pretend"

More unfounded assertions, when earlier you admitted there was no certainty on your part. Earlier you wrote that you were "not pretending to be polite". Perhaps you assume the worst in me because you assume me to be similarly disposed as yourself? Your attitude, however, is not a standard. Nor even a sub-standard. Your attitude is a problem. As are the replies that spring from it.

They really remind me of Karen on her scooter: she was utterly incapable of perspective, nuance, and courtesy. All she cared about was to shout at someone. She might have been deputed by gender as female, but a woman? Not on my terms. She was a c**t.

Bolded for emphasis. I read this as directed at me but I'd understand a ruling otherwise being that I might be overthinking this.

Shivering in my boots.

I'm honestly not sure why you think censuring your own swear words is needed.

Ad 1. This vapid reply has now been given twice. Do you have anything substantive to offer? Or shall I take it as a mostly tacid but wholly reluctant acceptance of the arguments it ignores?

Ad 2. When someone is low-key flaming, it is best not to reply with anything that can be taken out of context. Erring on the safe side and all that. As for you being honest... hope springs eternal in my mind.

Trollnaming me.

I'm not sure anything has really crossed the line or not but these two points stuck out to me.

Yes, I know some of the animosity here is my own and I have foe'd them and will avoid interactions like this in the future.

[Giovenith]

Addressed.

[Heloin]

Dankie

[Waspocalypse]

Dismissive snark, such as this one?

Congrats on expressing nothing. Someone was rude to you once, tough shit.

If my words are "snark" and "flamebaiting", then this one deserves a warning too:

And I will not be silenced. Not by assertions. Not by bad attitude. Not by mischaracterisations. Not by an inflated sense of entitlement.

Look at you, being so brave after the scary leftist silenced you. I must be shivering in my boots.

Belated edit:

1. Dismissive
2. A Latin quote to insult me, is still a personal attack.

...
Sure whateves.

...
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Let´s throw in some personal accusations for good measure:

It's less that and more I think you likely don't treat others with the common decency you pretend to care about.

And here is where the oh-so-inncocent lady lays out the bait:
1. Dismissive snark
2. Trying to make me write out a censored word

Shivering in my boots.

I'm honestly not sure why you think censuring your own swear words is needed.

If she is not sure why I would censor such a word, how can she be sure it is directed at her? Why elicit a reply on that matter?
Her replies were low-key toxic at times, and definitely baiting, especially when read in context. This was an effort to make me cross the line.

Comparing her attitude to the attitude of some Karen in the supermarket was perhaps over that line, though I would argue that throughout my replies, I had drawn the distinction - in general - between demanding d**ks / c**ts and polite requests for special consideration, without it ever being written as a personal attack.

But if that is already actionable, warning only me is not very even-handed, now is it?

[Waspocalypse]

Only just spotted this one.

Since indirect statements that involve flaming words are actionable, should I take Ifreann´s post as a personal attack, am I being called an Internet loser?

I feel that we are not on the same wavelength here.
You seem to assume that I am defending someone misgendering an obvious transition case, over and over again.

I was referring to the occasional mistake, or the occasional ambiguous case/ hyper-rare pronoun. And the vociferous minority´s bullying reactions.

That doesn't happen, though. It's just a fairytale that internet losers tell themselves.

Bolded for emphasis. Also, in my perception, it is happening. Both in that thread and by the existence of this moderation thread, the outcome of which I still contest.

[Waspocalypse]

And one more remark, about the censored words:

C**t = coot, an aggressive water bird that attacks other birds and even its own young at times. Seems like a very good descriptor for a woman intent on berating a millennial.

D**k = duck. Another species with aggressive behaviour not expected or tolerated in human society.

Why is it flaming to compare a Karen to a coot, and why is it flaming to tell another forum user that her responses seem unnecessarily aggressive all the time?

If a certain other user choses to misinterpret these words, that can hardly be my mistake? I think the ruling needs to be revoked.

[Sedgistan]

And one more remark, about the censored words:

C**t = coot, an aggressive water bird that attacks other birds and even its own young at times. Seems like a very good descriptor for a woman intent on berating a millennial.

D**k = duck. Another species with aggressive behaviour not expected or tolerated in human society.

I'll refer you to my nation's motto: don't piss down my back and tell me it's rain.

I think the ruling needs to be revoked.

Appeal denied.

[Waspocalypse]

And one more remark, about the censored words:

C**t = coot, an aggressive water bird that attacks other birds and even its own young at times. Seems like a very good descriptor for a woman intent on berating a millennial.

D**k = duck. Another species with aggressive behaviour not expected or tolerated in human society.

I'll refer you to my nation's motto: don't piss down my back and tell me it's rain.

I think the ruling needs to be revoked.

Appeal denied.

Fine.

Fair enough.

May I have a ruling on the actual reports, though?