It still seems to me that my “less social-attack-y” rewrite of one of your comments, in that thread, does feel less social-attack-y. You said then that you had no idea why it would be so.
If that’s still the case—and if you meant something like “I dispute that it is less social-attack-y” rather than “I acknowledge that it is less social-attack-y but I have no idea why”—then I think this lends credence to Villiam’s idea that you’re bad at perceiving which of your comments will be perceived as rude.
(And I think our other exchange from this thread is more evidence. You said a thing would not be perceived as insulting, I said I would perceive it as insulting, and you replied that it shouldn’t be perceived that way. But of course what should be and what is are two different things, and it seems to me that you’re less capable of tracking that distinction in this domain than in others.)
The comment I’m replying to doesn’t explicitly say that Villiam’s wrong here. It’s consistent with you thinking any of
I’m quite capable of predicting it, I just have principled reasons not to take it into account.
I’m indeed bad at predicting it, but that’s fine because I have principled reasons not to take it into account anyway.
I have no idea how good I am at predicting it, but that’s fine because etc.
But it gives the impression, to me, more of the former than the latter two.
And (supposing I’m right so far, which I may not be) I don’t think it would be surprising, if [your overestimate of your skills] turns out to be a crux as to [your principles generating the kind of comment you write]. That is, if the same principles would generate comments less-perceived-as-rude, if you were indeed better at predicting which of your comments would be perceived as rude.
(e: I should say that I wrote this comment before seeing the verdict. Dunno if I’d have written it differently, if I’d seen it.)
It still seems to me that my “less social-attack-y” rewrite of one of your comments, in that thread, does feel less social-attack-y. You said then that you had no idea why it would be so.
If that’s still the case—and if you meant something like “I dispute that it is less social-attack-y” rather than “I acknowledge that it is less social-attack-y but I have no idea why”—then I think this lends credence to Villiam’s idea that you’re bad at perceiving which of your comments will be perceived as rude.
(And I think our other exchange from this thread is more evidence. You said a thing would not be perceived as insulting, I said I would perceive it as insulting, and you replied that it shouldn’t be perceived that way. But of course what should be and what is are two different things, and it seems to me that you’re less capable of tracking that distinction in this domain than in others.)
The comment I’m replying to doesn’t explicitly say that Villiam’s wrong here. It’s consistent with you thinking any of
I’m quite capable of predicting it, I just have principled reasons not to take it into account.
I’m indeed bad at predicting it, but that’s fine because I have principled reasons not to take it into account anyway.
I have no idea how good I am at predicting it, but that’s fine because etc.
But it gives the impression, to me, more of the former than the latter two.
And (supposing I’m right so far, which I may not be) I don’t think it would be surprising, if [your overestimate of your skills] turns out to be a crux as to [your principles generating the kind of comment you write]. That is, if the same principles would generate comments less-perceived-as-rude, if you were indeed better at predicting which of your comments would be perceived as rude.
(e: I should say that I wrote this comment before seeing the verdict. Dunno if I’d have written it differently, if I’d seen it.)