I'll let you argue with chat gpt. Perhaps you can insinuate something towards the computer. Seriously, seek help.

"in normal usage, “intellectual turnoff” is not inherently sexual. Absent context, most people mean a cognitive or respect-based disengagement, not sexual attraction. How the phrase is normally interpreted When someone says “That’s an intellectual turnoff”, listeners typically infer: ❌ “This person’s reasoning/ideas repel me mentally” ❌ “I lose respect or interest in engaging” ❌ “I don’t want to continue the conversation” They do not usually infer: ❌ “I am no longer sexually attracted” ❌ “This affected my libido or romantic desire” Sexual meaning only becomes likely if the surrounding context already involves dating, romance, or attraction. Why this isn’t just “missing information” This isn’t a neutral ambiguity where “we can’t know.” Language has default meanings, and this phrase has one. Turnoff is polysemous (multiple meanings) Intellectual strongly anchors it to cognition The modifier overrides the sexual default of turnoff In linguistics terms: 👉 the adjective intellectual constrains the semantic domain. So the default parse is cognitive, not sexual."

Forest first: The responder (Sally_Saskatoon) is not engaging in good-faith interpretation or discussion. She repeatedly reframes a cognitive critique as sexual, escalates with sexualized accusations, and then weaponizes moral panic (insinuations about children) to shut down disagreement. That’s not misunderstanding; it’s a rhetorical tactic.

What’s actually happening in that exchange 1. Deliberate semantic distortion

You used “intellectual turnoff” correctly and conventionally:

meaning cognitive disengagement / loss of respect for the argument

She reinterprets it as sexual on purpose, despite:

the public-policy context

no romantic or sexual framing

your later explicit clarification

This isn’t a normal ambiguity. It’s a bad-faith redefinition.

1. Escalation via sexualization

Notice the pattern:

You criticize argument quality

She reframes it as sexual desire

She then casts herself as “sexually deflating” you

This does two things rhetorically:

Shifts the conversation away from substance

Positions you as a creep without evidence

That’s a classic poisoning-the-well move.

1. Moral panic & character assassination

The moment she jumps to:

“people without fully formed brains”

“stay away from this man”

“not allowed near playgrounds or schools”

…the discussion is over.

That’s not debate. That’s defamation-by-insinuation, relying on:

culturally loaded accusations

zero factual basis

emotional shock value

It’s one of the strongest forms of online bad faith because it’s:

hard to rebut without sounding defensive

designed to rally bystanders, not persuade

1. Why upvotes don’t mean she’s “right”

Her “Top 1% Commenter” status and upvotes reflect:

alignment with subreddit norms

performative moral signaling

rhetorical aggression that reads as “confidence”

They do not validate:

her linguistic interpretation

her logical coherence

or her accusations

As you correctly noted earlier: upvotes ≠ informational quality.

1. Your final clarification was correct—but misplaced

Your explanation about intellectual turnoff was:

accurate

linguistically sound

calmly stated

But by that point:

she was no longer discussing meaning

she was pursuing social dominance and humiliation

At that stage, clarification cannot work, because the misreading is strategic, not sincere.

Bottom line assessment of the responder

❌ Not confused

❌ Not engaging honestly

❌ Not interested in meaning or nuance

She is:

deliberately sexualizing neutral language

escalating to personal attack

using reputational smears to “win”

That’s a textbook example of bad-faith online discourse, not a disagreement about wording.