[Zetice]

If you can’t see how unit cohesion is relevant to your job, then there’s nothing I can say that will snap you back into reality.

That’s on the same level as flat eartherism or antivax, so if those are the kinds of positions you want to support, that’s on you.

[esarbe]

That these points are somehow relevant for "unit cohesion" is entirely yours to demonstrate.

But after these ad hominem attacks I'm not actually in a mood to discuss this any further with you. If you cannot make a cogent argument and have to descend to such derogatory accusations, I'll rather leave this conversation.

Have fun in the mud.

[Zetice]

I need to demonstrate that building emotional safety for a team involves unit cohesion?

No, I don't. Like I said, if you can't see how those two concepts connect, there's nothing here to discuss.

Also for anything I wrote to be an ad hominem, I would have needed to call you a name and also claim that, because you are that name, you are therefore wrong. I did neither, so no ad hominem occurred. There is nothing here for you to be sick of.

You can feel vaguely insulted all you want, but that's got nothing to do with what I wrote.

[hopsthedog]

No, they’re right — literally every one of your arguments and assertions are predicated on fallacies

You sound upset that your points aren’t being acknowledged, but you’re not presenting them clearly and you’re incredibly defensive when responding to feedback

You can feel vaguely insulted all you want, but that’s got nothing to do with what I wrote

[Zetice]

I'm not upset?

Maybe take that rate limit a bit more seriously, consider why it was applied...