I read it, you read it... it's a conversation thread.
Is there some notion that replying on lemmy must be strictly to engage the parent comments author?
Because I've never seen so many people policing replies as I have here. It's like we hate engagement or something.
"You" doesn't mean I'm talking to the bot, I'm using it as a general descriptor for a person. I could have said "I understand being cautious with one's statements", but that's very formal and unnecessary in a comment on a social media website. I can easily imagine you reading a sentence like "You need to study really hard to get to Harvard" and think someone is talking to you personally instead of making a general statement.
Communication is a cooperative process, interpreting what others say maliciously and automatically assuming they made a mistake is the definition of "bad faith engagement".
Edit: to clarify even further: since I commented on the text of the article, I'm replying to the summary. Maybe that's the part you're confused by.
Congratulations, you have won a coupon for one free semantic argument. You can exchange this coupon for one semantic argument, which will go unchallenged. You may also exchange this coupon for one saltine cracker, slightly stale but most likely still edible.
You are replying to a bot
I read it, you read it... it's a conversation thread.
Is there some notion that replying on lemmy must be strictly to engage the parent comments author?
Because I've never seen so many people policing replies as I have here. It's like we hate engagement or something.
"You" doesn't mean I'm talking to the bot, I'm using it as a general descriptor for a person. I could have said "I understand being cautious with one's statements", but that's very formal and unnecessary in a comment on a social media website. I can easily imagine you reading a sentence like "You need to study really hard to get to Harvard" and think someone is talking to you personally instead of making a general statement.
Communication is a cooperative process, interpreting what others say maliciously and automatically assuming they made a mistake is the definition of "bad faith engagement".
Edit: to clarify even further: since I commented on the text of the article, I'm replying to the summary. Maybe that's the part you're confused by.
Congratulations, you have won a coupon for one free semantic argument. You can exchange this coupon for one semantic argument, which will go unchallenged. You may also exchange this coupon for one saltine cracker, slightly stale but most likely still edible.