claims he doesn't understand your view / understands, has no clue how to object
A Scumbag Analytic Philosopher post.
Christmas dinner. Your uncle says the roast potatoes are objectively the best part. Your cousin, one term into a philosophy degree, puts down his fork and says "define objectively". Pudding is delayed by forty minutes. Your date asks if you'd like dessert. You ask what exactly is meant by "like". There is no third date, though you maintain there is one in a nearby possible world. Your colleague rejects your proposal for "lacking rigour". His own proposal is the same one, with "prima facie" added to every paragraph. It is approved by Friday. Your flatmate refuses to do the washing up until someone proves the dishes exist independently of his perception of them. The dishes, quite independently, have started to smell. **Why it caught on:** a bearded young man adjusting a pink bow tie borrowed the Scumbag Steve treatment and aimed it at analytic philosophy, the tradition of Frege and Russell, and anyone who survived a philosophy department recognised the man with a counterexample to your counterexample.