How long ago you made the comment is irrelevant

[usagora]

I've noticed that very often if I reply to a comment on YouTube, Reddit, etc. in disagreement, the person will often use the age of their comment as a cop-out from defending it. For example (this wasn't a real exchange--I'm making it up on the spot):

Poster: (1 year ago) "Every Apple product is a cheap P O S and fails within months"

Me: (today) "That's obviously false. I've owned over 15 Apple products over many years and not one has failed in that short of a timeframe."

Poster: (today) "Dude, you're like a year late in replying. Get a life!"

I've even seen people say that for a comment that's only a few months old too. Logically it makes no sense. The comment is the same, whether it was posted 10 seconds ago or 10 years ago. And even in specific cases where the age of the comment would actually come into play (e.g. changes that have occurred since that time that make the comment no longer true today even though it was at the time), then they can explain that in their reply instead of copping out.

Funnily enough, if I reply in agreement to an "old" post, they never bring up the age of their comment when they reply 🤔 Funny how that works.

Anyway, I just find that an extremely odd way of thinking. I've had people reply in disagreement to my posts from years ago, and not once has it ever crossed my mind to use how long ago I commented as an excuse to run away from the comment. I either ignore them (if it's obviously a troll, etc.), defend my comment, or modify/retract it if they have a valid point.

 

[sunapple]

I’ll reply to this in a year and see what happens.

 

[rm5]

I think it's just weird, and another one of those things that just happens and can't really be "dealt with," I can't explain it. I think it's totally unnecessary. The only "reason" that I can think of would be that the comment has no recent replies, and so you're comment is the only one there, but that still makes no sense to me.

 

[maflynn]

People's opinions, perspectives and priorities change over time. I think a person's comment is a snapshot of who they are at the time. I generally don't look at past comments to determine their relevancy. I will look back and cringe at time

 

[usagora]

I’ll reply to this in a year and see what happens.

As indicated in my OP, I will happily interact with you 1 year or 10 years from now on this thread 😉

 

[KaiFiMacFan]

I think when that happens, people feel like an old argument is being dredged up from the past that they've long since moved on from. Maybe their opinion or perspective has changed and maybe it hasn't. But the point is that they're done discussing it and responding to an old comment makes it seem like you're trying to start an argument that they're not interested in.

 

[Juicy Box]

I don’t see anything wrong with replying to an old thread as long as the post is relevant that the thread, and that it adds something new.

If your comment just repeats posts that was already posted, then there is no reason to add your comment to a really old thread.

People complaining about replying to old threads and probably the same people that complain when people post new threads on a topic that there are existing threads about.

 

[Mousse]

I think when that happens, people feel like an old argument is being dredged up from the past that they've long since moved on from. Maybe their opinion or perspective has changed and maybe it hasn't.

If their opinion has changed then the argument becomes irrelevant. If it hasn't, it is still very relevant.

My opinion of Hitler hasn't changed in the past 40 years. What I thought of him back then is still what I think of him today. My opinion of McDonald's as a kid is completely different from my opinion as an adult. Same with Disney; I see nothing but an Evil Empire now. *cue Imperial March*

 

[usagora]

I think when that happens, people feel like an old argument is being dredged up from the past that they've long since moved on from. Maybe their opinion or perspective has changed and maybe it hasn't. But the point is that they're done discussing it and responding to an old comment makes it seem like you're trying to start an argument that they're not interested in.

Then why respond at all? They could just ignore my reply. But when they reply and their only objection is "I posted this x years ago" that doesn't make any sense without something additional (such as, "I no longer think that way" or "I'm no longer interested" etc.).

 

[InnocenceMyth]

If you've already decided how they should reply if they do reply, why do you require any interaction at all?

 

[maflynn]

My opinion of Hitler hasn't changed in the past 40 years.

And Godwin's law is alive and well

I think for most people there are black and white topics that they'll never alter and of course for most normal people their opinions of that monster won't change

 

[Mousse]

And Godwin's law is alive and well

I think for most people there are black and white topics that they'll never alter and of course for most normal people their opinions of that monster won't change

I could have used Leopold II of Belgium, but he's not as well known. At least I AH brought some levity to the Internet, especially the different parody subtitles of Downfall. I've see hundreds of different Downfall parodies, most of them funny. The parody parodying the parody is my favorite.🤣 I can see no humor when it involves Leopold II. He's the most vile person to walk the earth. IMO.

 

[usagora]

If you've already decided how they should reply if they do reply, why do you require any interaction at all?

I'm not following you at all. If they don't want to reply, that's fine. All I'm saying is if they do reply, it's stupid to reply with just, "Dude, you're replying to a 6 year old post" and that's it. They completely fail to respond to what I actually wrote. It would be like if you had written a book 10 years ago, and when talking with you, I said, "Hey, InnocenceMyth, I have to take issue with what you wrote about such-and-such in your book," and you respond with, "Usagora, you do realize that book is 10 years old, right? Get over it! You should've objected back when I first wrote it!" It's a complete non-sequitur and a cop-out.

 

[avz]

I'm not following you at all. If they don't want to reply, that's fine. All I'm saying is if they do reply, it's stupid to reply with just, "Dude, you're replying to a 6 year old post" and that's it. It's a complete non-sequitur and a cop-out.

I think that the other poster just tried to remind you that "other people do what other people do". Bullies don't really care with what comments they will try to overpower you. The more ridiculous the comment actually the better and it looks like it is definitely working.

 

[usagora]

I think that the other poster just tried to remind you that "other people do what other people do". Bullies don't really care with what comments they will try to overpower you. The more ridiculous the comment actually the better and it looks like it is definitely working.

Honestly, what the other poster said makes no sense to me on any level the way it's worded, so unless they clarify, I have no idea at all what they were getting at.

 

[avz]

Honestly, what the other poster said makes no sense to me on any level the way it's worded, so unless they clarify, I have no idea at all what they were getting at.

It seems that you are trying to get inside other person's head and make out if they said something stupid or not without knowing what their agenda really is.

 

[usagora]

It seems that you are trying to get inside other person's head and make out if they said something stupid or not without knowing what their agenda really is.

No idea what you're getting at. I'm not trying to get into anyone's head to understand what their motive is. I'm simply pointing out that dismissing someone's reply with, "You're replying to a x year old comment" is a totally illogical response. It's just an observation I'm making, not a question I'm asking.

 

[Sun Baked]

I'm surprised they even responded to a comment on an old post.

I see notifications up in the corner when I occasionally log in. But do not bother checking to see if someone replied to one of my posts or comments from a thread I no longer interested in.

Much easier these days to read the posts and grab the knowledge, than be tempted to get involved in a pointless debate with somebody.

 

[usagora]

I'm surprised they even responded to a comment on an old post.

I see notifications up in the corner when I occasionally log in. But do not bother checking to see if someone replied to one of my posts or comments from a thread I no longer interested in.

Much easier these days to read the posts and grab the knowledge, than be tempted to get involved in a pointless debate with somebody.

And that's my point--why bother replying at all if that's all they're going to say? To me, it's a clear ego issue. They see you've refuted their comment, yet are either unable to or unwilling to defend their comment, but they think if they don't reply, then they've tacitly conceded the point, so instead they reply with this ridiculous objection ("why are you replying to an old comment") to vainly try to make you look silly when all they're accomplishing is looking silly themselves (since the age of the comment is totally irrelevant in these cases).

 

[RokinAmerica]

Well, if it were me, I would go with: I have no idea why you are necro posting and I sure as heck do not have any of the emotion from when that was made. At this advanced point in my life, I may not even remember the thread.

Not all of us want to continue (or remember) an age-old debate from some random forum.

Perhaps it is your ego that requires you to hunt down some old grudge?

Or is he living rent free in your cranium?

 

[usagora]

Not all of us want to continue (or remember) an age-old debate from some random forum.

Then don't reply! Just ignore it. Simple as that. No need to act like someone's ridiculous for responding to something you put out there for the world to read.

Perhaps it is your ego that requires you to hunt down some old grudge?

Lot of assumptions there. No, this is simply me discovering a thread on a topic and seeing a comment I disagree with--I have no idea who the person is and have no prior interaction with them, so no "grudge." I then reply to it. I couldn't care less when the comment was made, as that's irrelevant. If someone no longer holds that view, then that's all they have to say 🤷🏼‍♂️

I practice what I preach here, as I said. When someone replies to an old comment of mine, I'll either defend it, explain how my position has changed, or, if I don't feel like rehashing the "debate," I simply ignore it or tell them to read through the entire thread (if I already had elaborated on it over multiple posts and they were only responding to one).

 

[avz]

Or is he living rent free in your cranium?

Exactly. Apparently it is very easy to accomplish with just one comment.

 

[avz]

Then don't reply! Just ignore it. Simple as that. No need to act like someone's ridiculous for responding to something you put out there for the world to read.

I practice what I preach here, as I said. When someone replies to an old comment of mine, I'll either defend it, explain how my position has changed, or, if I don't feel like rehashing the "debate," I simply ignore it or tell them to read through the entire thread (if I already had elaborated on it over multiple posts and they were only responding to one).

You can only control yourself, not what other people do or say.

What you practice looks a whole lot like an "appeasement". Why do you feel the need to defend yourself in the first place? This is where learning the basics about the "power dynamics" would be beneficial.

 

[usagora]

You can only control yourself, not what other people do or say.

??? I never claimed otherwise.

What you practice looks a whole lot like an "appeasement". Why do you feel the need to defend yourself in the first place? This is where learning the basics about the "power dynamics" would be beneficial.

Not sure what you're on about. If I put out an assertion in public and it's challenged, why would I not defend it if I believe it? That's how debate works. This has nothing to do with appeasing anyone or power.

 

[avz]

??? I never claimed otherwise.

By saying things like "Then don't reply!" you are telling others what they should have said or not said. You can only control your own actions.