← Back to context

Comment by twixfel

2 days ago

If he’s posting about it on hacker news about how he was called a cunt by him then me thinks they weren’t, and never were, friends.

Point is even with context you’re still wrong.

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.

  • Ok so you just decided to randomly explain that cunt is not an offensive word in some cultures and in some contexts to some guy who complained he was called a cunt once and by a Brit.

    No reason why someone might think your comment was connected to OP’s comment. Nope none at all. Nicely done.

    • 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.

      Is that clearer now for you?

      2 replies →