four stripes, heels up high western spy, suka blyat etc
- 0 Posts
- 36 Comments
aaa999@lemmy.worldto politics @lemmy.world•Trump thinks he humiliated Zelensky. He really humiliated the United States6·2 months agolot of people are “shocked” and “surprised” but like why, as the saying goes he literally said he would do that
aaa999@lemmy.worldto politics @lemmy.world•Elon Musk says he might sue Gov. Tim Walz over accusations he gave a Nazi salute2·3 months agoI’m on mobile (voyager), I tapped the link and it opened in the generic browser and I could save with long press, so i guess copy paste the link to a browser if you want to save atuff
aaa999@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"52·5 months agoterm limits give even more policy setting power to elon, a guy who is rich but not elected
aaa999@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•Kamala Harris told Teamsters president she'd win "with you or without you"21·5 months agoelon is arguing for term limits
aaa999@lemmy.worldto politics @lemmy.world•AOC may have shifted to the center, but the Democrats aren’t ready for change71·5 months agowhich one of her supporters was materially harmed by those words
if we demand more from representatives and succeed you dingdongs accuse them of coopting all of the energy. depart, wrecker
aaa999@lemmy.worldto News@lemmy.world•A 'constitutional sheriff' tried to seize voting machines in 2020. Officials are bracing for a repeat.1·6 months agoi mean fun fact the person who appoints the police captain is elected, allowing bad voters to insert a bad police captain
You’re probably right that OP has blocked this person (every sane comment has downvotes except in this chain!), but “unpleasant interactions?” I’m having unpleasant interactions with OP right now (I have put it on hold until they solve the multiple choice question above, though) and that individual sure can’t stop posting. Since I remain clearly unblocked, I have to conclude that OP blocked this person for some reason other than “unpleasant interactions.” Anyway if OP is curious about stuff they can’t see due to choosing to not see it, OP can log out of the account that’s choosing to not see the stuff.
I’m not continuing until you reply to the top comment in your post.
Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play “find the assumption” has failed I’m gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human). “I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset.” “Democrats” “If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist” It’s the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say “I can’t wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset” or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there’s simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that’s what you’re attempting.
OP will engage in a ten hour discussion in the bad comments replying within seconds every time and not do one multiple choice question
OP is also pushing the assumption: “Everyone is either 100% paid by Putin directly, or 100% totally fine.” This is a bad assumption. It’s totally fine to say “I, an internet poster, have no idea as to how many handshakes away from Putin this person is. They could be paid, or paid by a surrogate, or ten degrees of that, or they could have been fooled into sincerely believing RT talking points. However, their behavior and statements are useful idiot behavior and useful idiot statements, and I’m judging them appropriately.”
Look I’m gonna engage with this for the benefit of people watching. I’m not engaging in personal attacks as you’re attempting to imply. I don’t want to “own” you in a debate. I want the people reading this to look more critically at the opinion you’re trying to insert without directly saying, so that they’re better inoculated against this kind of stuff in the future. Just saying “you opinion bad me good” doesn’t do that! Of course if you wanted to have a truly gigantic brain and “own” me you could openly name the assumption you’re trying to push, and show it isn’t an assumption (which is your job to do as the person making the argument, by the way, unless you’re a “prove there’s no bigfoot anywhere” type individual)
look no offense but I’m speaking to the people you’re attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let’s see if removing a key phrase is good enough)
Removed by mod
there’s a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using “bullshit” according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there’s no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?
yeah some progressive senator/rep was saying this was actually 10d chess on trump’s part to extract concessions from industries in exchange for tariff relief, and, maybe, but also, you know, there is the other explanation