|
|
|
|
|
|
by fluoridation
1022 days ago
|
|
|
What it literally says is "it's going to feel like I've insulted a cult". It's not a very idiomatic sentence, which to me suggests the writer is not a native English speaker, so we need to interpret more liberally. >my comment will trigger negatively a ton of developers, because talking about JS like this it's going to feel like I've insulted a cult. Let me be clear this is not my intention. The salient points are: * A lot of developer may take offense to these comments. * "Because it's like I've insulted a cult" -> "Because it's like I'm killing the sacred cow." -> "Because it's like I'm trying to be intentionally offensive about something that's off-limits." * This is not their intention. If you take into account the entire paragraph I think the intent is quite clear. "If you take offense to my comments please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, I'm just expressing my personal opinion." I'll grant you that it's somewhat clumsily communicated, but that's not that surprising if ivanmontillam is not a native speaker. I think you latched on too strongly to specific words, instead of taking in the general message. |
|
|
The crux is the speaker preventatively discredit any objection. In this case by suggesting they are irrational and emotonal.
“People will complain/get angry/be triggered by my theory X because theory Y is a dogma/cult/holy cow/religion/what they have been told to believe by mainstream media” - the point is of course that an objections to theory X might be perfectly resonable and fact based. Objections will tend to be defensive (“its not a cult, it is mathematically proven that…”) making them seem weaker.