Mine is the grammar nazi/the person who treats (what are imo) casual online discussions like dissertations.
I know how to write and make convincing points but I’m not gonna sweat that the point I made was a bit broad or that I didn’t capitalize the right thing.
Generally speaking, if you could tell what I meant and still correct or dispute my point with me, that’s my online etiquette pet peeve.
I hate the whole “and so you are a nazi then” or “you are a cop” and the gatekeeping of ML thinking with no explanation when someone disagrees.
It is sometimes justified to warn comrades of known revisions and such things but oftentimes it is just thought terminating, dogmatic, and callous. I think ML thinking is actually a pretty large, broad, and accomodating discourse and so protecting it from dogma is a major responsibility that is hard to achieve when you quickly dismiss comrades. It is best to explain thoroughly and approach conversations as if the other person is speaking in good faith. These message boards are read by more than just posters so its good to keep in mind there is always an audience and acting in good faith is for the benifit of that audience as well.
It is more common online i think although it definitely happens in person. Its hard to reign in the sanctimony for myself too.
deleted by creator