[samdoidge]

> this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial.

I did not read it as that, and don't believe that is what his statement conveys.

[randallsquared]

The part "it's sometimes not one-sided", taken literally and minimally, tells us only that there are some people whose own actions reduce their dignity. Given a sample population of any size, this provides no additional information about the topic under discussion: there are some asinine people everywhere.

What information could the poster have been conveying, then, if not nothing? In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod, or that they were baiting tomrod into responding at length (if so, success!), or that they genuinely didn't consider the implications of their comment, or something else entirely that was too subtle for me to catch. Probably only they will ever know. :)

[dorian-graph]

> Probably only they will ever know. :)

Today's your lucky day ;)

> In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

It wasn't in reference to tomrod's experience at all. Mystery solved.

> It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod

Absolutely not! And I find that suggestion reprehensible.

[jshevek]

> In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

Not at all. You are assuming another's thought process and motive, and doing so without any charity.