A later example of verbal, social aggression was:
Ancient Greece's Negativity Towards Lust - #33 by lmf
you’re bad at reading if you read the thread and still think this
lmf acknowledged that that comment was bad, though I don’t think the cause was fixed.
A later example of verbal, social aggression, which was not acknowledged yet, was:
Quantization, String Theory - #24 by lmf
Please enlighten me!
That’s a well known passive-aggressive thing to say.
It came after this, too:
Ancient Greece's Negativity Towards Lust - #36 by lmf
ET:
Don’t rage post at this forum. It’s really not OK. You should stop way before rage – e.g. if you’re tilted or defensive enough to consciously notice.
lmf:
I agree that it’s really not OK. I will strictly observe this rule in the future.
Reading that I wondered why, if he was capable of observing that rule strictly, he wasn’t already observing it.
Relating this to earlier in the discussion: This is an example of what it means to choose to focus effort elsewhere instead of on philosophy. This is what people are commonly like. And people typically fail to fix this kind of issue even if they try a bunch, let alone if they choose to focus elsewhere. And errors like these affect success at other fields like physics or math. These kinds of attitudes and behaviors affect discussions and other interactions with people in whatever field your in, and affect how you take criticism and pushback (and whether people are willing to share it with you),
There was also this comment:
Some of the other stuff in this thread also triggered me, in a way that I consciously noticed, and to an even greater extent than you’d probably guess based on my posts alone.
I had seen that lmf was very triggered just based on his posts. I didn’t say that because it’s hard to tell triggered people that they’re triggered without getting very nasty reactions, or at least a denial. I’ve tried it a lot in the past. I also saw that lmf was triggered/defensive/upset/tilted/something in the prior message before the “Please enlighten me!” snark. I also took those replies as indicating that a typical pattern was going to happen: each time we disagree, lmf will think he’s right this time, even though he was wrong every previous time that we resolved issues. I don’t want to explain people’s errors one by one; that’s very inefficient, largely ineffective, and repetitive/boring since I’ve done it thousands of times already. I want to talk about methodology and underlying causes, and what can be done about them. I want to focus on things with leverage that could get big results. But people resist this quite strongly (one reason is because they don’t want to acknowledge having important, deeper problems), and instead want to focus on the same sort of stuff that they’ve been doing.