Um, you kept defending your use of the word, rather than abandoning it in the face of multiple people showing you used it incorrectly. I returned to the website today to a new-to-me question from you asking for a definition, so I gave it. You've been antagonistic and personal to me rather than admit that nepotism means family and close friends, not "everyone I know," and it has hurt your core thesis since--again--multiple people read your posted definitions and noted that they did not support your use of the word.
It's so weird that you're unwilling to see this, or how it's undermining your primary point, but you do you.
> Um, you kept defending your use of the word, rather than abandoning it in the face of multiple people showing you used it incorrectly.
Do you often abandon ideas because of a volume of people disagreeing with you? How do you differentiate that from falling victim to an ad populum logical fallacy?
> You've been antagonistic and personal to me
Apologies! Can you cite, specifically, where I was unambiguously this way towards you? I'd like to understand whether this is just you reading too much into something I said, or if I've genuinely made a mistake here. I suspect the former, but it could be the latter!
> rather than admit that nepotism means family and close friends, not "everyone I know,"
What's interesting here is that you think I ever said, "everyone I know". I certainly didn't mean that, and as far as I can tell, I never said that either. I look forward to seeing the specific language I used that caused your confusion!
> and it has hurt your core thesis
How would this hurt my core thesis, since it's not important to that thesis if the people being favored are close to the person in power?
> multiple people read your posted definitions and noted that they did not support your use of the word.
Noted incorrectly. There's nothing to be done if people write factually false statements on HN, but that's what they are; factually incorrect.
Further they're not "my* definitions, but definitions from prestigious institutions trusted to define English words.
> It's so weird that you're unwilling to see this
That implies there's something to see, when in fact there is not. What's actually weird is how you keep replying, yet with no new information or analysis.
> or how it's undermining your primary point
It cannot be undermining my primary point, as it's not related to my primary point.
> but you do you.
Oh I will, I do not need permission from you to do that. Again, I'm curious about why you take this position of authority, as if you have any control over my behavior at all.
It's so weird that you're unwilling to see this, or how it's undermining your primary point, but you do you.