>>11818952responding to "define random please" with "define define" is like responding to "prove that god doesn't exist" with "prove that a unicorn doesn't exist".
the idea behind both, is that your opponent asked you to do something. you think this is unfair. instead of doing it, you ask them to do the same thing.
the expectation is that they will try to do it, encounter difficulty, and fail. and this will illustrate the absurdity in their own request.
the implication behind this post is that "defining" is hard to do and/or an unreasonable request in a conversation.
take a moment to appreciate the fact that anon did not come up with this on his own. there are places in the internet where this is an accepted norm. there are groups of people whose "discussion culture" (what is sometimes called "board culture") involves the mutual agreement that everyone is too stupid to define terms(or prove a negative, for that matter).
these people do not view someone asking them to define a term as an honest question. they do not feel invited to share their thoughts, and encouraged to participate in the discussion. they feel attacked, and put on the spot. they take for granted that this is a rhetorical question, meant to criticize them, because they take for granted that nobody can easily define the terms that they use.
other people do not feel this way. they view being put on the spot as being given interest and attention, by people who are genuinely interested in hearing what they think. such people would not interpret "define random" as an attack, but as an invitation to give voice to their thoughts and participate in a discussion.
i wish to bring this to the attention of whoever finds this cursed thread
