[JohnHaugeland]

Viral load does not have anything to do with chance of spread.

This is actually very easy to look up, if you put in the effort to do it correctly.

I find that HN is really creaking under the weight of "I'm genuinely curious for you to look something up for me, I looked for werewolf shoes and I didn't find anything about this"

This form of walrusing pretends to be diligent interest in factual information, but it's actually sloth, attempt to control others, and a giant "I don't know how to use search engines skillfully" sign around the neck

[YATA0]

>This form of walrusing

Sealioning[0]. The term is sealioning...

Your poor attempt at sounding smart has backfired and instead you sound like a dumbass.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[albedoa]

Remember to switch back to your other account, Alok.

[YATA0]

Who is Alok? Did you reply to the wrong thread? This is my only account.

[lowkey]

I’ve never heard the walrus analogy before and this is the first time I’ve been called a walrus.

I did do my own googling. Here is what I found [0] - a study that seems to indicate the opposite of your claim that

> Viral load does not have anything to do with chance of spread

I realize it is difficult to infer tone in a comment but I would encourage you to assume good faith. It keeps this community civilized.

[0] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[albedoa]

> this is the first time I’ve been called a walrus.

This is one of your more incredible claims.

> I realize it is difficult to infer tone in a comment but I would encourage you to assume good faith. It keeps this community civilized.

Hey just fyi since you supposedly just learned what a walrus is, one thing they are known for is their requirement that everyone else assumes good faith long past the point of credulity.

Nobody is depriving you here. The trick to not being called a walrus is to not act like one. It's extremely easy!

[lowkey]

I’m still not sure what exactly you are inferring by calling me a Walrus. Does it mean I have tusks? Are walruses known for acting in bad faith? Your comments are immature and toxic. If you can’t engage in constructive dialogue, name calling is a poor substitute.

[JohnHaugeland]

You're not even replying to the right person, dude. He didn't say it. I did.

It comes from this: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Look at what that thing is saying, then look at what you said. *PERFECT MATCH*.

You really have no idea how much people hate this, do you?

[lowkey]

> You really have no idea how much people hate this, do you?

I’m starting to understand how much hate you have in your heart for me. I’m still not sure why. Do you hate anyone who disagrees with you or am I special?

[JohnHaugeland]

> I’ve never heard the walrus analogy before

It's not an analogy. It's common internet slang for someone who won't stop arguing even though it's clear that nobody wants to listen to them talk and nobody is taking them seriously.

Your reply is pure, unadulterated walrusing.

It comes from an episode of Wondermark. http://wondermark.com/1k62/

.

> I did do my own googling. Here is what I found

Nothing of value, filtered through the eyes of someone who has no understanding of the material.

.

> I realize it is difficult to infer tone in a comment but I would encourage you to assume good faith.

This is a core Walrus concept: the idea that anyone who's sick of their inability to read the room just thinks the walrus is acting in bad faith, and that if the walrus appeals harder, the ocean will start to flow in the other direction and they'll suddenly be wanted, liked, and respected.

Predictably, this never actually works, but the reason a walrus is a walrus is that they cannot accept that their constant yammering is inappropriate, so they continue to frame things as "they just don't understand me."

You are overly fake-polite "i'm genuinely curious" because you get this reaction constantly and consistently from multiple people, and won't accept that your own behavior is inappropriate, so you're stuck in a series of decreasingly sensible explanations to avoid the obvious one.

It's simple.

Nobody cares if you're genuinely curious. You're bad at Googling, you give up the second you find something you think means you're right, you stand on evidence you don't understand, you give bare links and expect people to read them (when you obviously did not) and respond at length to tell you why this isn't right when you never even said what in it you're responding to.

I didn't even open your link.

Nobody does.

It should be obvious to absolutely anybody that the person you're trying to force into a conversation *DOES NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU*.

"Oh well maybe if I'm just polite enough and I google up something where I read the headline"

Stop it, dude. You aren't a casual doctor. You aren't a casual scientist.

Nobody should have to waste their time explaining to you why what random BS you found on Google doesn't say what you thought it did.

I did make the mistake of opening your first link. It had absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed.

I'm tired. Please learn to read the room. Nobody wants to sit here watching you sit in a search engine looking for softballs to throw across the room.