I'm not sure if you were referring to me here, but personally I did read the entire comment and found all of it hostile and condescending. I also find his insinuation that I haven't read his comments thoroughly enough hostile and condescending.
That comment is entirely unhelpful, and a net negative with the condescension. If you think someone misunderstood, help them by restating the idea in a way you find more understandable.
Ok, since now my comment has been called "condescending", "self-righteous", "mocking", "mean" and "humiliating someone", I need to understand.
Disclaimer: English is not my first language.
I did express that I'm interested in hearing the view, if further elaborated and explained why it is lacklustre, without attacking the user itself. I'm unsure of why my comment would arise these negative feelings, but I would like to fix it to not happen again. Thanks.
> I'm just giving you some perspective and examples of real life experience
Frankly, this comes across as a little bit condescending. Another example, a phrase like this from your first response:
> And honestly, most of y’all don’t know any better
Who are "y'all"? Why don't we know any better? This comes across as hostile, like you're coming at this from the perspective of "I'm definitely right and this guy is full of it." I don't believe that's true, but that's how it read to me. Perhaps it's just the challenge of no discernible tone in text.
> Also you wanted to understand the downvotes, which is also why I chose to reply
I still don't quite understand. Downvote != agree, and my comment wasn't rude or disrespectful. It's just not the majority opinion here.
Yes. Thank you for explaining my comment to me, and you're completely right, but you missed the part where my comment was based on his first and last sentences only going the other way around. It did seem a bit dismissive and condescending at the time so I had some fun with it.
Using quotes to paraphrase your own interpretation of what OP posted (and then ignoring the last sentence which had more meat) is exactly the kind of low value comment you're talking about.
The comment being replied to was also rather uncivil by a certain definition, assuming the commenter was unfamiliar with what is by now very cliched literature and explaining it in a somewhat condescending tone, as if to a child, when in truth there was a very substantive point being made.
> The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.
Combined with the further-down "Here, let me Google that for you.", it seems likely that that was the intended effect. It's pretty clear that negative value to the discussion was provided by both comments, in addition to the (subjective) dismissive attitude.
I'm sure I agree, but surely there is something to how so many commentators here clearly immediately assume that the Prof's question must have been framed so that the best interpretation is condescending.
reply