Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8985965" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, I'm aware of how certain people perceive me, and the people I clash most with are people who I would perceive as being themselves guilty of patronization, and aggression, even if they're unwilling to face that.To be clear that's what's called a &quot;non-apology&quot;. It's when someone intentionally doesn't take responsibility for offence caused, and instead blames the person they offended. It used to be common in corporate &quot;apologies&quot; before the public started seeing through it. If you mean to actually apologise, I suggest using &quot;I'm sorry that I offended or triggered you.&quot;, because then you take responsibility. You'll notice I always avoid the &quot;if&quot; formulation (because sometimes I do have to apologise!).And the patronization is in the suggestion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bad person or needs help or guidance or the like. Even I don't think that's the case with people who disagree with me (on the contrary many have excellent ideas and good intentions, to be clear), but you explicitly laid it out in your post.Some people will like it - there's always a market for people claiming to be unifiers whilst actually taking a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; attitude. And your attitude is explicitly &quot;my way or the highway&quot;, as inarguably demonstrated when you told people who disagreed to go play other games instead. I'm not suggesting you return to lurking, but if you come here saying &quot;agree with me or you suck&quot;, well, I don't think that's going to end well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8985965, member: 18"] Yes, I'm aware of how certain people perceive me, and the people I clash most with are people who I would perceive as being themselves guilty of patronization, and aggression, even if they're unwilling to face that. To be clear that's what's called a "non-apology". It's when someone intentionally doesn't take responsibility for offence caused, and instead blames the person they offended. It used to be common in corporate "apologies" before the public started seeing through it. If you mean to actually apologise, I suggest using "I'm sorry [B]that [/B]I offended or triggered you.", because then you take responsibility. You'll notice I always avoid the "if" formulation (because sometimes I do have to apologise!). And the patronization is in the suggestion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bad person or needs help or guidance or the like. Even I don't think that's the case with people who disagree with me (on the contrary many have excellent ideas and good intentions, to be clear), but you explicitly laid it out in your post. Some people will like it - there's always a market for people claiming to be unifiers whilst actually taking a "my way or the highway" attitude. And your attitude is explicitly "my way or the highway", as inarguably demonstrated when you told people who disagreed to go play other games instead. I'm not suggesting you return to lurking, but if you come here saying "agree with me or you suck", well, I don't think that's going to end well. [/QUOTE]

Verification