While a mega merger between two of America’s largest grocery chains is snarled in regulatory red tape, a smaller European entrant is eyeing a major expansion in the US.
Again, it’s irrelevant to MY ARGUMENT. In my first post I did not make any mention of my beliefs.
The chain of events from my perspective is:
OP makes an argument about how the stimuli made the economy appear, relatively, worse now than it actually is.
You replied to an argument about the stimuli CAUSING the economy to be shit.
I replied, clarifying OPs original stance. The only bit of my beliefs in the first reply is the last sentence, where I say OPs argument is a better case for UBI than it is for the current state of the economy.
You reply with an article attacking OPs views.
I reiterate my views, significantly different from OPs.
You again attack claims that I have not made.
My entire existence in this thing is one simply asking you to argue, WITH OP, on the words they’ve actually said. And somehow we’re here, me acting as a surrogate OP because you can’t seem to parse that I’m not the one making the claims, just interpreting them.
Then again you are flying squid, not reading squid.
That’s fine. It happens. I encourage you to go back and reread the OPs post, and your reply to it. I think you’ll see why I’m so exasperated.
You make good points, they’re valid and based in reality. I’d encourage you to try to fully understand the opponents views before attacking them, though. Thank you for showing a bit of humility.
Again, it’s irrelevant to MY ARGUMENT. In my first post I did not make any mention of my beliefs.
The chain of events from my perspective is:
OP makes an argument about how the stimuli made the economy appear, relatively, worse now than it actually is.
You replied to an argument about the stimuli CAUSING the economy to be shit.
I replied, clarifying OPs original stance. The only bit of my beliefs in the first reply is the last sentence, where I say OPs argument is a better case for UBI than it is for the current state of the economy.
You reply with an article attacking OPs views.
I reiterate my views, significantly different from OPs.
You again attack claims that I have not made.
My entire existence in this thing is one simply asking you to argue, WITH OP, on the words they’ve actually said. And somehow we’re here, me acting as a surrogate OP because you can’t seem to parse that I’m not the one making the claims, just interpreting them.
Then again you are flying squid, not reading squid.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to two different people. It’s sometimes hard to realize that on Lemmy.
That’s fine. It happens. I encourage you to go back and reread the OPs post, and your reply to it. I think you’ll see why I’m so exasperated.
You make good points, they’re valid and based in reality. I’d encourage you to try to fully understand the opponents views before attacking them, though. Thank you for showing a bit of humility.