“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” ~ Rousseau
really mansplaining refers to debate practices done incorrectly or in bad faith
it’s all about the pretentious people appealing to their own authority
in lieu of proof/s
they lack honour but go on to disrespect their opponent while refusing to let them leave
trans. intellectually dishonest bullies
aka It can’t be antisocial if I use big words! Stop crying! Stop hitting yourself!
they assume an authority above the other speaker without anything to back it up
it’s just extremely more typical for the male to bitch with rationalizations to feel intellectual
it’s a logical fallacy to wield the terms and ideas of logic incorrectly
their own emotional high rests on their opponents’ ignorance of correct form
like kicking sand in their eyes in a fight
they need to cheat because they’re scum
no parties involved can commonly articulate this because neither of them fully know the rules
in short, in response to one stupid person/group, you get the REAL triggered group
they pretend to be offended by lies, but it’s really personal -like, REALLY personal
the opposite of gentlemanly (correct form) making them instant losers
going “achtually” when nobody invited them, they don’t know what they’re talking about (man card is not a valid qualification on STEM topics) and sperging out
in a woman it’s called being a gossip, being a bitch, whining, being nosy or nagging
they try to pass all those off as proof of masculinity and veracity (fooling no one, causing temper tantrum)
it’s entirely fully 100% bitchy men pretending to be smart
starting on the idiots they perceive as slightly lower in the chain
throwing a tantrum when you point it out
not men, but boys, too easily triggered to be masculine
when arrogant men and women bump noggins, but project their faults as an innately sexual thing
buy hey, I just believe in Burden of Proof
Most things are not obvious. Otherwise, a debate would be redundant.
My personal favourites are;
you’re too dumb to explain it to (or, Occam’s razor, you can’t do it cos you’re poorly informed and therefore wrong) but also I don’t even understand you and that’s your fault (incredulity)
If I repeat myself maybe it’ll make it sound like I have a valid point.
If you call me out on any of my bullshit, somehow ad hominem.
Autistic shrieking as they gesture at both wikipedia and the common dictionary of non-technical terms.
If you make my beliefs look stupid, I will get so defensive I can only call it a strawman but cannot explain why.
This is so offensive I don’t actually know where to start.
Three major points. Keep it brief.
- gaslighting is a serious form of psychological abuse and not a card to wave around to win an argument (i.e. you do not abuse someone by engaging in debate).
- gaslighting occurs over time with the mental unhinging of the victim, a chronic behaviour between a specific victim and predator. Harley Quinn is a good fictional example. It ruins lives, is no joking matter and the damage leaves a permanent mark. It is very serious and often counts as a crime when it can be proven.
- the people who say they want a polite conversation should be minding their manners the most, calling attention to someone’s shitty behaviour is not tone policing and certainly never gaslighting. However, SJWs are the biggest tone policers out there, say black not coloured, he in a dress is she, say POC not Paki, say gay not homo etc etc. If you use their words with sarcasm, they will literally try to play Tone Police and possibly threaten to call the police (word use is not yet illegal, empty threats and wasting police time are).
I was tempted to put this on the wall of shame but it’s more productive to explain why it’s wrong.
Also, this ugly pig somehow manages to be uglier on the inside. Abuse victims are not rhetorical chips to play against people you dislike. I’ve seen the damage firsthand and I want to personally slap anyone who minimizes their trauma.
What was the argument, the topic?
A 15 year-old who thinks cutting its hair will make it a boy, responding to the correct claim it has a mental illness with ‘fuck you’.
Truly, it is the rhetoric of champions.
They’ve lost their minds, haven’t they?
Tone policing is when somebody with a higher social or other IQ insults you and all you can say in return is
“I don’t like your tone.”
That’s it. The sole ‘criticism’.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That is literally it.
If they have anything else to say, the tone thing is a passing comment. Especially if they reference a specific etiquette rule which has been breached (rationality).
Another form, often improperly used for the same task is “You’re being very rude.”
Commonly used by men losing a row with a woman when the fact she is a woman makes them rampantly insecure.
It never works to silence women (they use it in a bitchy gay way) because a gentleman would never say that (if both parties are doing it, neither can play high horse) nor get into a row in the first place. Debates and other meetings are mannered, respectable affairs and if you flout the rules, you automatically lose. This isn’t a bar at closing. This improper decorum should be pointed out after a few like infractions and once pointed out. with evidence, the debate or other meeting is already over. Arguably, it ended when the rules were broken. If you have to breach the etiquette, you are the loser.
Sometimes, the topic calls for rudeness e.g. using the word vagina in a conversation about abortion. It doesn’t change the logos of the argument, the facts. If it devolves to a verbal barrage of personal insults, that person is declaring their own loss in trying to poison the well.
The speaker knows this, but things like ‘omg rude’ and other synonyms as an excuse to end the conversation are cheap tricks to get out of explaining oneself when your turn comes around once you already volunteered to do so (making the user, in fact, the rude one).
“I’m losing and/or I’m wrong so instead of admitting it and/or bowing out gracefully, I’ll blame you (possibly gaslighting, actually); I don’t want to talk to you anymore and I will control this situation because you’re a Big Meanie and should feel ashamed of yourself, you’re a bad person for making me feelbad.”
If you keep pressing their triggered amygdala, they’ll go onto a long projecting rant about how rude, ugly and stupid you are. Hitting the three main notes of manners, looks and intelligence that liars often seek to conceal re themselves.
This is unusually well-informed, it’s like a comprehensive list of most issues I’ve heard that turned out to be red flags and dealbreakers for women. We see a lot of dealbreakers for men (standards for women) but rarely the reverse. I know there’ll be some butthurt guys sour we’ve noticed but you’re meant to be about self-improvement and that includes relationship errors.
Men always say ‘We don’t know what we’re doing wrong, just tell us!’
Except when we try to tell you, you don’t listen. And then we’re the nag, apparently. They don’t correct the issue by changing their behaviour (if they had the empathy to do that, there wouldn’t be an issue), they want to make excuses as if that fixes things and it’ll stop being a problem. We aren’t your mother. If you don’t fix the issue, and worse, make excuses for treating a relationship like dirt, it won’t be swept under the rug. We can and do leave, often on what appears to the dense male as ‘no notice’.
You get to control a dog, not a person (they are still a human even if you’re married, one of the few divorce reasons even for Catholics is abuse of spousal power for good reason, nobody has carte blanche when coupled, the entire point is considering and compromising with another, an act, not empty words). If the terms of exchange are disagreeable, it isn’t the injured party’s fault for going. It’s the selfish person who expected their desires came above another’s needs or set ridiculous (petty, irrational) double standards based on a trashy temperament (antisocial, narcissistic, borderlines etc). Any man who ponders marriage should make sure he doesn’t commit resentment-inducing errors that might deservingly end in divorce court (btw, this list also applies to women, because this is how you should treat a human, especially one you love). This is a list of disrespectful behaviours you shouldn’t even tolerate from an acquaintance or friend. It’s inhumane, degrading treatment, the calling card of fuckboys, and their daytime form, douchebags.
You can’t put a bandaid on a crack in the foundations. The whole building will come down. Excuses are for schoolboys, women raise problems so the man will be masculine about it and act, it’s a challenge to his masculinity and you’d better not fail e.g. “the spice rack isn’t hung yet…”.
If you think this would turn into a row, congratulations, you’re a man. All he needs to do is say “I’ll do the thing on (day)” and then actually keep his promise. Shocking, I know. Women are such complicated creatures.
If you think it’s actually about the spice rack instead of being about the man performing in his masculine role (or not), congratulations, you’re a thick man who gets into a lot of arguments with women and doesn’t know why. I guess women are ‘crazy bitches’ because anger is never justified from a woman you promised shit to.
In this case, an experienced wife would treat the man according to his emotional age and give him a taste of his own medicine by usurping his role if he won’t fill it, by crossing his line of sight with his tools when he has time to do it, making like you’re going to do it yourself, and letting him ‘show you’. This isn’t manipulative because sometimes, as the DIY death rate shows, men are the dumber sex. Men do the exact same thing when you act like you can’t operate the washing machine but a 2-ton car is a Man’s Job TM. Yes, we’re canny to that too.
Translation, of such a simple sentence about a spice rack: “You said you’d do this 4 months ago, this is the fifth time I’ve mentioned it and if I do it myself you’ll whine and pout for another month, so just hang the bloody spice rack, please. I don’t enjoy telling you to perform your role in this house, you signed up for this. I’m doing all my work and contributing and so well, in fact, that you don’t even know what it is.” When a woman brings something up and she’s irritated, it’s because she shouldn’t have to bring it up.
A woman doesn’t like to remind her man that he is a man. She doesn’t enjoy making demands of him because as an adult he should already know. If they married (non-married, there are no real commitments but it’s vague) then he signed up for a series of duties and responsibilities, and so did she. I saw a great post about how Wife is a job, not a title.
Well, it goes both ways. You married each other, the man did not marry a maid/cook/whore/mother/whatever and she has to settle with a lazy fat lump on a sofa making demands like she’s his mother. Settling doesn’t mean that. Settling is a good thing where you agree to perform gender roles for a life together, that you equally enjoy.
Husband is a job, not a title.
Men with happy marriages are not overbearing, cruel or come up with stupid hoops for the woman to jump through. They listen as they would to a sister and respect her as if her mother.
I’ve seen the manosphere point to comedy and whine that the woman is a shrew and the man lazy. These two behaviours are connected, but they refuse to admit this because they’re allergic to industry or equal standards and this is the reason they’ll die alone. There was a study of the hours a housewife works, keeping the house alone and caring for children alone and it would be deemed illegal if she were paid. The man gets off hours a day, the woman hardly any. Yet they say “why are you stressed?” Honestly, ask every housewife you know to tally the hours she works a week and on which tasks and prepare to be shocked. We don’t complain proportionate to the labour, we get on with it.
Women used to have support networks and/or maids to have the same working hours as men. Our time is very cruel to women, expecting us to Do It All. The economy too, demanding dual incomes, mean women work longer hours with all the fun side effects, like aging faster on the face and cortisol weight gain. It is impossible to ask these things of one person, and as I like to say with the obvious example, raising small children – if it’s such fun, I challenge the men complaining how ‘women have it easy’ by either doing a swap (a la I Love Lucy) or volunteering around small children for a week, say, in a nursery. See how long you last (and those kids can’t interrupt you sleeping off the exhaustion, you aren’t legally responsible for them really and they can’t break your house). No? Don’t want to work with kids? Then quit complaining that it’s easy when you are blissfully ignorant of the requirements, it’s like a champagne socialist talking to factory workers. All talk, no man.
Men have been mis-sold a fairytale from 50s advertising that they can be Kings over their wife. Those advertisers were all men so no prizes for why they had no idea what women were doing at home. Actually, Kings have about the same authority as their Queens and treat them with respect. In many cases, the Queen has more power and the man is in fact Prince Regent, inferior. If you cannot afford nannies and servants, don’t have aspirations above your station (where lifestyle and ‘free’ time are concerned). Money causes most rows i.e. the man isn’t making enough and being The Man but if the woman tries to help he gets prissy. We cannot win and this is unfair on the woman’s side (yes I know the economy is bad too). However, it must be made clear, marrying a woman isn’t buying a slave at market to mistreat. It’s agreeing that you’ll be The Man, forever. To her. Whatever happens, sickness, poverty, aging. Whether you feel like it (lazy) or not. It’s a partnership and one side can’t steer a ship. Don’t like it? Go your own way. This is the way relations between the sexes have always been. The American Dream is literally impossible without equal participation. This isn’t feminist, it’s a team effort. There are no individuals in a marriage.. This dates back to cavemen. Everyone’s work is important to support the tribe. The man is not automatically higher although he leads (and the greater burden for screwing up is on him as last word). They’re both running things, ignore the Idiot Box’s lies, this isn’t a competition (but statistically based on working hours, men would lose) and any man calling a woman out on this will soon experience The Strike. This is entirely passive and hence, feminine. She’s just showing you the consequences of a life without her help, as she was defamed. Where she does the thing you accuse her of (doing nothing, laziness) to show you her value in the house. This starts a row because the man refuses to admit he was wrong before. Pride has wrecked many a marriage, it isn’t as if anyone else is going to hear him and again, he isn’t an individual, he is a husband talking to his wife. Imagine one coworker refusing to admit his colleague did any work, it’s ridiculous. Male eyes tend to gloss over while women are working, the fools can say it doesn’t “really count”, bringing the Strike on themselves and this is why some women draw attention to their efforts, hoping for acknowledgement from the man they love e.g. I did this, I’m doing that, I’m going to do that next, I do everything around this house, nobody appreciates me, look at this thing I am holding or pointing at as I ask you a rhetorical question about it. Sound familiar? She wants your approval, idiot! She wants affirmation from the only man who matters in the world to her, it’s a gesture of love!
It’s like a dog giving you the puppy begging eyes, but even more obvious to a third party.
Then it’s “why is she angry? I did nothing.” Yes, that’s the literal problem. A man who fails to engage with his wife (import of communication) won’t have a happy marriage. Women need words. Words you mean (honesty). Reputation in the house (reliability, a classically male trait) for keeping promises is as important as business rep.
You don’t get to sit around doing nothing being waited on, especially when you’re a prole. That happens on TV with the big houses for ‘working class’ characters and it’s also the reason the ‘man of the house’ is the object of the comedy, because he isn’t the ‘man of the house’ at all, the woman is having to pick up the slack for her failure of a man. You must contribute to the running and keeping of a house even though it is the woman’s domain and she has the last word there (hence bringing up your failure there just like a performance review, is also her job). Women enjoy lengthy discussions assigning specific responsibilities and making these things clear but men fear them. Sloth. You should’ve agreed this stuff before.
If you’re a man and keep letting the opposite sex slip through your fingers, see if you feel a bit offended at this list’s items (and most of it applies to dating, the lowest difficult setting of a relationship with the opposite sex).
Essentially, you should treat a future spouse with the most respect of anyone in your life, including your best friend and family. You’ll be spending thousands of hours with them a year. One sign a marriage is over is that the husband is nicer to the waitress he’ll see for an hour. Women need affection to show affection and it’s the man’s duty to lead.
It’s funny how the trashy men don’t know they’re trash and are often loudly bemoaning the ‘trashiness’ of random women (usually in the USA, as if American woman aren’t the global exception) with utter obliviousness to how repellent this is. As if we don’t notice how you speak about other women.
If you are offended, if the shoe fits and you treat people like this, any people, feel free to strap on that thing and strut, girl. I’m the messenger.
Relationships are a choice. They take effort and communication. Do you want to learn these things now or in post-divorce counselling?
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don’t stand around acting like it isn’t work, bitching.
Best ones imo, expanded;
Paranoid when you spend time with male friends, but when he has female friends, it’s fine, don’t be so paranoid.
Used you like a therapist (emotional pin cushion).
Thought he was smarter than you (regardless of evidence to the contrary, which was obviously a fluke).
Tried to pretend Yes All Men are like him when he behaves badly, blame-shifting.
Coffee snob (signalling prick).
Mansplaining – on topics he is ignorant on, especially if you know better. They double down for ego and wonder why the woman dumps/nexts them and this keep happening, “why don’t women like smart guys” – they aren’t smart, they can’t keep a woman. Meth addicts of 50 IQ points can keep a girlfriend. Smart isn’t like House where being an arrogant prick is funny or attractive.
Thinks intelligence or wit are solely the preserve of males, gets patronizing on their demonstration by a woman (slightly intimidated and insecure about it for no reason to feel ego-threatened, wtf) and wonders why only boring stupid bimbos are suddenly all he can attract.
Characterizes rationalizations as rational, logical, or being argumentative not as passive-aggressive and unhealthy but “playing Devil’s Advocate”. Devil’s Advocate is balanced, no emotion behind it or personal investment, it’s never cruel or mean-spirited to hurt the other person, that’s bullying.
Tried to control your appearance but the street was one-way, crazy bitch. His terrible hygiene is ‘au naturelle’ and his awful style ‘unique’ as if those are good things. Often talks a big game about self-improvement because dumb.
Undeniable human trash from an objective perspective (can’t commit to anything in his entire life, absurdly commitmentphobic of the word commitmentphobic). Generally a failure at everything he tries.
If you’re playing by Queensberry rules using logic and the other guy is fighting dirty and kicks sand in your eyes, he will always win.
At this point, I’m no longer connected to my actual values, but instead the pure animalistic desire to be better than another person. You’re still playing with everything to lose. I wish I could just say you’re right — I really do — but my lizard like brain is defensive and you’ve attacked me. I can see in your eyes how much you actually care about not only this issue, but also how much you care about me. I’m actually kind of sad for you.
Subhuman, see it? Zero intellectual honesty, no searching for truth, no emotional sincerity whatsoever. They’re bullies looking for someone to verbally kick. The ‘debate’ is a framework, they broke the rules first by entering with dishonest intentions. Morally, you’re clean.
They don’t feel genuine pity or remorse (except for themselves, hardly genuine). They know the words but not the music, as is often said of sociopaths.
When in debate with a person like this, do not let them go. Do not let them wriggle out. Amygdala hijack them over and over again as hard as you can and wait for them to crack before they run (you’ll know when they crack, you’ll just know). You screw them down and crush them (h/t Greene) or they will go after other innocent people. When they run away by choice (which requires cracking first), they don’t come back. It triggers their childhood rejection schema. When they are crushed, they think twice the next time they want to start trouble. If enough people do this, they stop altogether. It’s a moral duty to create this outcome if you may.
Know how I know this?
How I can tell the damaged ones on-sight? Partly experience, partly….
In the future, I will perhaps be calmer and admit my wrongdoing. However, more likely, I will add this moment to the large list of times I’ve been wrong and let it be erased from my memory. When you mention it again, I will pretend it never even happened.
MEMORY BLACKOUTS ARE NOT NORMAL.
I believe AC covered them in r-type narcissists/sociopaths.
He genuinely believes all of that, because that is what he remembers, even if he doesn’t remember a single phrase or idea Klingenstein said to him (which I am sure he doesn’t).
False memories up the wazoo.
(It should be noted, if attempting an amygdala hijack, and your opponent successfully meme-ifies you in their mind, your hijack will fail, because they will no longer be listening. In such a case, you must de-meme-ify yourself in their head, by identifying how they meme’d you, and then showing exactly how wrong they are using pure logic, in an argument made to the crowd of observers watching. Once you are no longer racist, etc. to the crowd, they look silly for thinking that, and they are back paying attention, continue to out-group and humiliate, in a calm and reasoned fashion.)
The first time I realized he had real problems was the day after he did something weird right in front of me. The next day I asked him why he did it, and he looked at me confused. “I never did that! Not only didn’t I do that…. I would never do that!” His voice rose to a crescendo, his arms waved in the air, and his insistence, combined with the genuinely puzzled and confused look on his face, made me think he literally didn’t remember doing something very memorable the day before. Otherwise, how could he deny it, and think I would acquiesce?
…This was my first clear introduction to the concept of “False Reality.” Narcissists inhabit what is called a false reality. In this false reality, they are as near to perfect as a human being could possibly be. Of course this false reality usually diverges from real reality, where they often will have difficulty in the simplest of relationships over the long term – and most who know them well view them as, for lack of better words, evil, damaged, and crazy.
Everyone else is screwed up, even people they used to sing the praises of, suddenly stories of secret abuse and “deserving” bad things come out. It’s warped to watch them. Highly disturbing.
Something common I’ve had: They claim correcting them on the inappropriateness of personal issues in reasoned debate is abuse. That you are abusing them by using logic. Seriously.
n.b. I realize this site is comedy but it really nails the mindset.
When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?
(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.“…
Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.
…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…
Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science
It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.
If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.
Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….
If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….
…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic. …
..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….
…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……
….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real. ….
Trigger warnings, anyone?
Cliff notes: everyone thinks their beliefs are consistent. If you ask them to reason through A-Z, you can pick apart their argument with less antagonism than just pointing out why they’re wrong, labelling them as wrong, from the opposite conclusion.
If you were in charge, how would you do it? Literally, exactly what would you do?
Think about it this way. There are three types of people who become relevant.
1. The idiot. You have no responsibility to teach them and they aren’t paying you. 9/10 they aren’t even grateful and actively hate you. At best, point them in the direction of a list of half a dozen good starter resources.
2. The attention whore. You’re feeding them. Call them out, laugh, move along.
3. The person who really wants to learn and seems like a good person. You need to know them on the level of friend to ascertain for sure and they’ll be less likely to snipe. Rarer than they seem, #1s and 2s come at you like this. Tease with little tendrils of the big ideas. If they bite – Same advice as #1, if they have questions tell them to save them until after they’ve studied those resources. Give the briefest response possible to each question.
You will preserve your sanity (1/2) and spread the good stuff, people might seek you out for it.
<insert SJW jape here>