In fairness, they also included the clause “to me” at least twice.
But in general I completely agree with you.
The thing that really gets me is that they follow up the whole “I don’t like this so it’s objectively unacceptable” with demanding action and demanding they “make it a top priority”.
Like yeah, sure, we’re gonna make “pleasing hypersensitive crackpots” a top priority…
It’s always baffling how people can define something as unacceptable. Says who? You? Who are you to just make that decision so unilaterally?
You can have your opinion, but it’s just that.
And their opinion is that this is unacceptable and outrageous.
I guess. The way it’s formulated purposefully removes them from the statement, though.
That’s how it always goes. It’s not that I’m offended. Is that it is offensive, objectively. It’s silly.
Yes, that’s what I’m challenging. Who do people think they are to think their subjective opinion is objective truth?
It usually goes hand in hand with not justifying themselves because “everyone agrees it’s unacceptable”.
Sorry I edited my comment to make it clear I agree it’s silly. Nothing is objectively offensive.
In fairness, they also included the clause “to me” at least twice.
But in general I completely agree with you.
The thing that really gets me is that they follow up the whole “I don’t like this so it’s objectively unacceptable” with demanding action and demanding they “make it a top priority”.
Like yeah, sure, we’re gonna make “pleasing hypersensitive crackpots” a top priority…
And implicitly, by “everyone” they mean “the other people like me”, and of course that’s circular.
It doesn’t really matter, though, because intellectual honesty isn’t something people care much about, compared to their ego and their identity.