Possible interpretation assuming positive intent: “Lol” in this case could mean “Oh shit, I didn’t realize that, damn the internet sucks at attribution. It’s funny that even I can get caught in it sometimes.”
“Lol” doesn’t have to be douchey if you don’t want it to be.
(I acknowledge that I don’t know @cm0002@lemmy.world and they could be a douche, but I choose to assume they’re not until proven otherwise)
Guy was going for a cheap shot and hoping to get a pat on the back for it I guess? The mental gymnastics he’s going through explaining himself is borderline legendary.
As opposed to, say, highlighting a single word as a reply implying some form of wrongdoing? Or is that less douchey because it’s like a double negative?
Well, it kind of is. It basically equates to saying “whatever” or “who cares” when I’m pretty sure the author of the comic would care. They could’ve just said “my bad, just fixed it” and that’s it. But no, they made the conscious effort to communicate that, even though they fixed it, they don’t really care about it. Which is, in my opinion, kind of a condescending/patronizing/childish/petty/douchey/whateveryouwanttocallit thing to do.
If it was a single word, in a vacuum - sure. But the literal following statement was “it was a cross post but I did the right thing and broke it to fix the problem” sorta applied some context to the prior word.
I read it as “ah shit, yeah, haha lemme get that” and it appears others did as well.
Context matters. So yeah - you can go on thinking you were slighted here over your “observation” with no context… or maybe take this as a “maybe process the whole statement before reacting” critique … which is what it was intended to be.
I really don’t see how “lol” would mean that in this context but ok. Even with the context to me I was more like “idc” or “this isn’t important”. I mean, if they wanted to say “whoops”, they could’ve said “whoops”.
Could I be the one that misinterpreted what they intended to say? Of course, I’m not a native speaker and (being the human that I am) I can make mistakes. However, the general response seems to be more aggressive than communicative, which is one of the reasons why I started to really dislike Reddit and the interactions on that platform.
I really don’t see how “lol” would mean that in this context but ok. Even with the context to me I was more like “idc” or “this isn’t important”. I mean, if they wanted to say “whoops”, they could’ve said “whoops”. […]
Semantics. Regardless of how you (or anyone else) read the first word: the following statement provided the appropriate result and explanation. The case was opened and closed. A positive outcome was achieved (accreditation of the author.)
Returning to my original assertion: what was the purpose of your statement? Your statement lacked context. If people misunderstood you (I don’t think they did) … one word doesn’t exactly leave things terribly clear does it? This isn’t a they (op) thing.
Regarding your statement about language: When I am in an area where I don’t speak the local language - I rely more heavily on context to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I believe that to be fairly standard. This wasn’t, by my assessment, a situation where someone could be misinterpreted unless the remainder of their statement was disregarded. Could I be off base? Sure - but I genuinely doubt I am.
Lol it was a .ml crosspost after all, I have broken the crosspost link to put in the proper comic link
“Lol”
My dude: he made the swap when it was pointed out. Did you want a long form apology in 10 pt font?
Ah this explains why i was confused thinking “these are the same picture”
Some light grovelling wouldn’t go astray.
Not really, just that they could have omitted the “lol” to sound a bit less douchey.
Lol that’s a step edge you’re on there.
Oh no step edge, what are you doing?
I’m leaving it now, thanks.
Possible interpretation assuming positive intent: “Lol” in this case could mean “Oh shit, I didn’t realize that, damn the internet sucks at attribution. It’s funny that even I can get caught in it sometimes.”
“Lol” doesn’t have to be douchey if you don’t want it to be.
(I acknowledge that I don’t know @cm0002@lemmy.world and they could be a douche, but I choose to assume they’re not until proven otherwise)
It was def a positive intent, a “fuck how did I miss that”
I dunno how or why they took it so…wrong I’ve never had that happen before lmao
Guy was going for a cheap shot and hoping to get a pat on the back for it I guess? The mental gymnastics he’s going through explaining himself is borderline legendary.
As opposed to, say, highlighting a single word as a reply implying some form of wrongdoing? Or is that less douchey because it’s like a double negative?
Well, it kind of is. It basically equates to saying “whatever” or “who cares” when I’m pretty sure the author of the comic would care. They could’ve just said “my bad, just fixed it” and that’s it. But no, they made the conscious effort to communicate that, even though they fixed it, they don’t really care about it. Which is, in my opinion, kind of a condescending/patronizing/childish/petty/douchey/whateveryouwanttocallit thing to do.
But hey, fuck me, right?
If it was a single word, in a vacuum - sure. But the literal following statement was “it was a cross post but I did the right thing and broke it to fix the problem” sorta applied some context to the prior word.
I read it as “ah shit, yeah, haha lemme get that” and it appears others did as well.
Context matters. So yeah - you can go on thinking you were slighted here over your “observation” with no context… or maybe take this as a “maybe process the whole statement before reacting” critique … which is what it was intended to be.
I really don’t see how “lol” would mean that in this context but ok. Even with the context to me I was more like “idc” or “this isn’t important”. I mean, if they wanted to say “whoops”, they could’ve said “whoops”.
Could I be the one that misinterpreted what they intended to say? Of course, I’m not a native speaker and (being the human that I am) I can make mistakes. However, the general response seems to be more aggressive than communicative, which is one of the reasons why I started to really dislike Reddit and the interactions on that platform.
Semantics. Regardless of how you (or anyone else) read the first word: the following statement provided the appropriate result and explanation. The case was opened and closed. A positive outcome was achieved (accreditation of the author.)
Returning to my original assertion: what was the purpose of your statement? Your statement lacked context. If people misunderstood you (I don’t think they did) … one word doesn’t exactly leave things terribly clear does it? This isn’t a they (op) thing.
Regarding your statement about language: When I am in an area where I don’t speak the local language - I rely more heavily on context to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I believe that to be fairly standard. This wasn’t, by my assessment, a situation where someone could be misinterpreted unless the remainder of their statement was disregarded. Could I be off base? Sure - but I genuinely doubt I am.
Lmao