• TheOubliette
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    ”Nuh-uh!”

    Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?

    You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it’s wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.

    Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn’t do that, they might cease being liberals.

    You should not support genociders.

    And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically.

    My response works either way and I didn’t assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.

    More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.

    We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.

      • TheOubliette
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not liking my comment doesn’t make me wrong

        I think we may need to go to square 1 on discursive thought. I did not say or imply that not liking what you said means you are wrong. You are using an informal fallacy known as a straw man, which is where a person replies to an allegation by staying or implying something that was not said on the other person’s behalf because it is easier to contend with.

        This is a fancy way of telling you to stop relying on making things up. I have never implied what you alleged. Please do your best to stick to what I actually say instead of using bad faith posturing.

        and the “conclusions” you draw are obvious proof that you’re in no position to criticize the “logic” of others

        Then deny them. What was I wrong about? What was bad logic?

        And I don’t need your permission to comment here.

        I didn’t imply that you did. That’s 2 straw men already in just this comment.

        If you’re too scared of your comments being scrutinized, perhaps you should post your comments on the wall of a toilet stall rather than to a public forum.

        I would not consider this series of inventions and clichés to be scrutiny. At the moment there is a struggle to get you to respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. I will be excited when I finally get some scrutiny!

        That was your point. I summarized.

        It was about the same length as my original sentence. The purpose of the misquote was to mock because you’d like to imagine me as like an obstinate child than acknowledge your own fear of even saying the word genocide - as you are complicit in one. No need for you to try explaining, it was obvious.

        Again, of you don’t like being scrutinized, don’t post in a public forum.

        Yet again you have skipped over the other point I made. Isn’t it getting conspicuous!?

        It’s cute how you blame others for your own actions, even when you have to make the reasons up by pretending to be psychic and reading my mind.

        I don’t know what this is referring to. What did I do that I blamed others for?

        And I don’t need to be a psychic, just aware of tropes and behaviors. Notice that you are already confirming several of them accidentally!

        Yet, somehow, you still act like this is a rational position…

        What is the position I present as rational? That you should be against genocide? That you should work against genociders? Personally, I thought that would work as a shared baseline. I think the barrier is a set of chauvinistic talking points handed to you by the political class as well as a learned helplessness. And obviously an approach to discourse that is so defensive it permits repeatedly inventing things from whole cloth.

          • TheOubliette
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            Whether you regret being called out as so, remarkably wrong or not, I can’t say, but you don’t get to do over just cause you lost an argument.

            I haven’t lost an argument here and am not attempting any kind of “do-over”. Please do your best to reply to what I actually say rather than making things up.

            You’re arguing in clear, bad faith

            No, I am being forthright and honest.

            and you’re using disinformation to do it

            Such as?

            If you regret what you said, just delete your comments.

            Please reply to the things I actually say, such as the entirety of my last comment that you just ignored.

              • TheOubliette
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 month ago

                Pure word salad with no relation to what I said.

                Please do your best to engage with what I say in good faith. If you cannot formulate a coherent response it is okay for you to take a break or simply not reply.

                  • TheOubliette
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I can’t fix the word salad for you, nor is it my fault that you are now behaving this way. Please do your best to engage in good faith.