To be clear, I've seen it in the wild, but not here where it's discouraged to pick on words instead of focusing on the substance of what's being said.

▲

bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Here's a better example. Use "a few bad apples" wrong, and you'll likely get a response. A few bad apples will cause the entire barrel to spoil rapidly, so a few bad apples is a big deal. But it's often used to say the opposite, that a few bad apples isn't a big deal.

▲

bryanlarsen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wish I had posted a better example, but I couldn't recall anything at the moment and still can't. It's usually a more interesting complaint than the old man shaking fist at clouds of the usage of the word literally.

	▲	the_af 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OK, but let's dig deeper. Would you prefer to be corrected on some logical fallacy/mistake you made in your argument, by another human being (and yes, maybe get slightly upset about it, we're human beings after all), or have both sides present bot-mediated iron-clad comments, like operators sparring with robots? I prefer the raw, flawed human version. Even if, yes, I make a silly, avoidable mistake, or get upset, or make you upset in the heat of the argument. Maybe when I cool down I will have learned something. I don't want flawless robotic arguments. I want human beings. (Fuck, that last bit sounded like an AI-ism, but I promise it's me, a human!).