> "[Citation needed]" was merely meant as a shorter and much more polite way of implying all of the above.
I'll grant you that it is shorter. But how is leaning on a meme that stopped being funny in 2007 to call attention to your concerns polite? That would be considered asshole behaviour anywhere else. Especially when you consider that if one is not familiar with the meme and ends up taking it at face value it is a request that is impossible to fulfill, backing one into a corner. That is not good faith participation.
If you have concerns that are worth raising with another party, surely it is worth speaking to that other party like a normal human being?
> it is fairly bigoted and more than a little bit offensive.
I'll extrapolate from this that you are really trying to suggest that the other party might be what we oft label a troll. In which case perhaps you can make a case that they are not deserving of normal human treatment, however they are also not deserving of your time, so no reply would be made in that case anyway.
I'll grant you that it is shorter. But how is leaning on a meme that stopped being funny in 2007 to call attention to your concerns polite? That would be considered asshole behaviour anywhere else. Especially when you consider that if one is not familiar with the meme and ends up taking it at face value it is a request that is impossible to fulfill, backing one into a corner. That is not good faith participation.
If you have concerns that are worth raising with another party, surely it is worth speaking to that other party like a normal human being?
> it is fairly bigoted and more than a little bit offensive.
I'll extrapolate from this that you are really trying to suggest that the other party might be what we oft label a troll. In which case perhaps you can make a case that they are not deserving of normal human treatment, however they are also not deserving of your time, so no reply would be made in that case anyway.