The example you linked is satirical semi-surrealist shitposting, there’s nothing really there to engage with. It’s just making fun of democrats for willfully ignoring her complicity and rhetoric regarding the genocide. Or maybe you’re confused, I meant their comment replies were trolling the people brigading that community not the post as a whole.
But more generally you’re basically advocating reducing politics into team “vote blue no matter who” and team “russians/bots/traitors/other enemies”. Oh this person is mocking Kamala, therefore they basically aren’t human.
Or alternatively “this either confirms my biases or is bad-faith and should be ignored”
But more generally you’re basically advocating reducing politics into team “vote blue no matter who” and team “russians/bots/traitors/other enemies”.
But what if I am just advocating trolling the tanks and mags? You said you know a bunch of people who that’s their sense of humor, so that should be easy to understand. Surely that would be pretty cool, right?
Ok, you’ve apparently latched onto my explanation of why I thought that guy wasn’t a bot. Could you maybe respond to the comment you’re replying to instead?
Then again why am I surprised you’re not interested defending your idea. Your whole thesis is “if they don’t already agree they should be ignored.” I’m obviously one of the russian bots to ignore.
‘Everything I don’t like is fake news’ is dumb when they do it and enlightened when I do it.
Ok you’re now trolling about as hard as that guy trolled the people brigading his community. So what does that make you?
At least I’m not such a dumbass that I think actively avoiding challenging your beliefs is a good thing. “Engaging with ideas sounds hard :( never think again bestie its bad for you”
I thought that type of thing and sense of humor made perfect sense to you though?
For serious, I will bet you $200 that I can find 10 examples from the last 3 days of me talking bad about Democrats, or engaging with someone who is challenging my narrative without calling them a bot or troll or anything of the sort
You spun up this whole strawman that because I called a troll a troll, that must mean I call other people who are just disagreeing with me trolls, but you literally just made that up. Bet me that you are wrong.
That’s the core of the substack you posted, that’s the whole idea. Even the submission title you chose is just ‘it doesn’t matter if they’re genuine or not because they’re basically bots’
Recognize the doomers, and ignore them. Most of them are not human, most of the humans are not American, and none of them care. They are like a pothole in the road: there is no point reasoning with them.
People are already way too quick to call everything a bot/propaganda/a russian op, they do not need more encouragement to think less.
The example you linked is satirical semi-surrealist shitposting, there’s nothing really there to engage with. It’s just making fun of democrats for willfully ignoring her complicity and rhetoric regarding the genocide. Or maybe you’re confused, I meant their comment replies were trolling the people brigading that community not the post as a whole.
But more generally you’re basically advocating reducing politics into team “vote blue no matter who” and team “russians/bots/traitors/other enemies”. Oh this person is mocking Kamala, therefore they basically aren’t human.
Or alternatively “this either confirms my biases or is bad-faith and should be ignored”
But what if I am just advocating trolling the tanks and mags? You said you know a bunch of people who that’s their sense of humor, so that should be easy to understand. Surely that would be pretty cool, right?
Ok, you’ve apparently latched onto my explanation of why I thought that guy wasn’t a bot. Could you maybe respond to the comment you’re replying to instead?
Then again why am I surprised you’re not interested defending your idea. Your whole thesis is “if they don’t already agree they should be ignored.” I’m obviously one of the russian bots to ignore.
‘Everything I don’t like is fake news’ is dumb when they do it and enlightened when I do it.
Am I doing it right?
Ok you’re now trolling about as hard as that guy trolled the people brigading his community. So what does that make you?
At least I’m not such a dumbass that I think actively avoiding challenging your beliefs is a good thing. “Engaging with ideas sounds hard :( never think again bestie its bad for you”
I thought that type of thing and sense of humor made perfect sense to you though?
For serious, I will bet you $200 that I can find 10 examples from the last 3 days of me talking bad about Democrats, or engaging with someone who is challenging my narrative without calling them a bot or troll or anything of the sort
You spun up this whole strawman that because I called a troll a troll, that must mean I call other people who are just disagreeing with me trolls, but you literally just made that up. Bet me that you are wrong.
That’s the core of the substack you posted, that’s the whole idea. Even the submission title you chose is just ‘it doesn’t matter if they’re genuine or not because they’re basically bots’
People are already way too quick to call everything a bot/propaganda/a russian op, they do not need more encouragement to think less.
Does that mean you don’t want to bet?
deleted by creator
It probably means you could pull your head out of your wounded ego child self, and think