I’m sorry, I really don’t have the time to do reading comprehension with you, I’ve put it pretty clearly in the very first Idea I’ve listed. Also, reread my conclusion and see how much someone’s job shows up in what I’ve written.
You spent a whole lot of time saying “this shows how dumb men message smart women.” Yeah, that isn’t a surprise and dick pics being sent or received isn’t limited by type of person. Context doesn’t matter. Unsolicited nudes is never ok. It doesn’t matter who has what job. Her bragging and making assumptions about their intelligence is stupid, this is just a hate circle jerk.
You’re entire second paragraph is hot air that doesn’t speak to the point raised. There was no point made in that paragraph at all beyond “dick pics bad.” Yeah, we already agreed on that. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension because you don’t seem to understand the topic being discussed. It’s her job and bragging, not you preaching about how dick pics are bad.
Then someone calls that out and you talk down to and insult them.
Such unearned confidence with such ignorance on display isn’t shocking. Those go together a lot on Reddit, it’s just said to see.
Well, yes, that’s the gist of the whole diatribe, “junk pics bad.” But you seem to have missed my point entirely, too, because my point was “sending junk pics* makes you look like an asshole and will probably ruin the other person’s mood.” Again, re-read my conclusion. And, just in case, that was the point of the post, too. Again, the job description only serves to drive home the point in that particular case.
Also, I genuinely don’t see how what I’ve written is insulting. What, the fact that I apologised that I don’t have the time to do reading comprehension? Well, yeah, because I genuinely did not have the time to do reading comprehension (which, again, may have been entirely pointless even if I did have it, as the commenter didn’t exactly demonstrate having read the entire text before jumping on “oh, so are only scientists allowed to feel offended?!”). Are you bothered by the “reading comprehension” bit? If so, why? That’s literally what that’s called.
You’ve jumped in defence of someone who hadn’t read the whole comment (at least I hope they didn’t read it, otherwise it’s worse!) (edit:) and who started out hostile from the go, and built your argument around misunderstanding my comment (again!). The initial question was (paraphrasing): “how is the job description relevant?” And I did just that in my first paragraph - explain the literary value of the job description as an element of this tale, what its value is in shaping the message and driving the point home. After which I returned to saying that, yes, one’d be an asshole regardless. (Edit 2:) I even went as far as to clarify that one would be an asshole even regardless of the type of junk one possesses in my Edit, not just one’s job.
The fact that YOU choose to hyperfocus on that element and not the vast tracts of text surrounding it on either side does not mean that the original text’s messaging is what you want it to be.
So apparently if you aren’t a fucking scientist, then dick pics are okay to send to you.
The “type” of people shouldn’t fucking matter.
I’m sorry, I really don’t have the time to do reading comprehension with you, I’ve put it pretty clearly in the very first Idea I’ve listed. Also, reread my conclusion and see how much someone’s job shows up in what I’ve written.
Have a good’un.
You spent a whole lot of time saying “this shows how dumb men message smart women.” Yeah, that isn’t a surprise and dick pics being sent or received isn’t limited by type of person. Context doesn’t matter. Unsolicited nudes is never ok. It doesn’t matter who has what job. Her bragging and making assumptions about their intelligence is stupid, this is just a hate circle jerk.
You’re entire second paragraph is hot air that doesn’t speak to the point raised. There was no point made in that paragraph at all beyond “dick pics bad.” Yeah, we already agreed on that. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension because you don’t seem to understand the topic being discussed. It’s her job and bragging, not you preaching about how dick pics are bad.
Then someone calls that out and you talk down to and insult them.
Such unearned confidence with such ignorance on display isn’t shocking. Those go together a lot on Reddit, it’s just said to see.
Have a good’un.
Well, yes, that’s the gist of the whole diatribe, “junk pics bad.” But you seem to have missed my point entirely, too, because my point was “sending junk pics* makes you look like an asshole and will probably ruin the other person’s mood.” Again, re-read my conclusion. And, just in case, that was the point of the post, too. Again, the job description only serves to drive home the point in that particular case.
Also, I genuinely don’t see how what I’ve written is insulting. What, the fact that I apologised that I don’t have the time to do reading comprehension? Well, yeah, because I genuinely did not have the time to do reading comprehension (which, again, may have been entirely pointless even if I did have it, as the commenter didn’t exactly demonstrate having read the entire text before jumping on “oh, so are only scientists allowed to feel offended?!”). Are you bothered by the “reading comprehension” bit? If so, why? That’s literally what that’s called.
You’ve jumped in defence of someone who hadn’t read the whole comment (at least I hope they didn’t read it, otherwise it’s worse!) (edit:) and who started out hostile from the go, and built your argument around misunderstanding my comment (again!). The initial question was (paraphrasing): “how is the job description relevant?” And I did just that in my first paragraph - explain the literary value of the job description as an element of this tale, what its value is in shaping the message and driving the point home. After which I returned to saying that, yes, one’d be an asshole regardless. (Edit 2:) I even went as far as to clarify that one would be an asshole even regardless of the type of junk one possesses in my Edit, not just one’s job.
The fact that YOU choose to hyperfocus on that element and not the vast tracts of text surrounding it on either side does not mean that the original text’s messaging is what you want it to be.
Right back at you!
Yes, that was my point!