1087
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1087 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19102 readers
3444 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Implied heavily, yes. Define "tell."
Tell would be me writing those exact words, you even enclosed in double quotes, like you were quoting me. I literally had to scroll up and check if I had said something like that, which I didnt but apparently I implied it.
And when "quoting" me you said that those words imply something else. Can you please stop making assumptions?
You've really never seen anyone rephrase an implication as if it were a quote? It's a frequent occurrence in online arguments, I thought everyone was used to it by now.
Was the absolutely clear implication that "whosoever has people who wish to attack them deserves it."
I just noticed however when hunting down the quote that it wasn't you that posted it, but ragingrobot or whatever his name was. You simply attached yourself on to that point, so while you didn't say it yourself you are backing that up. That however would be the implication to which I previously referred, my mistake for the slight identity mixup, but you started in, after a few back and forth with the robot, with:
Soooo DUH I thought you were the same guy I had been talking to. But nonetheless, you've chosen to attach yourself to arguing his implication in his stead, as he neglected to continue when I pointed out quite succinctly that "not everyone who was murdered 'did something shitty that made people want to kill them.'" You instead take this to mean I think I'm like MLK simply because I pointed out that he didn't "do something shitty that made people want to kill him," which is proposterous. Unless you believe civil rights advocacy is itself "a shitty thing that made people want to kill him" I suppose.
So I didn't say that, not something that implied that. That's when you apologies for a small mistake, it happens to everyone but no you actually doubling down.. mate really, stop putting words in my mouth, and then make up things based on words that I didn't say if you want to reply to the other person just do it
No, he did and you hopped in throwing punches for him, so you are working in concert even if he was the one who actually said it. I said my bad for the mixup, but why then do you continue to fight for him? Surely you could have made a mistake as well and missed that comment, why not say "oh sorry no I don't actually agree with that I was asking about MLK because I thought logically of course you must think you're MLK if you invoke his name as 'one undeserving of his fate.'"
I'd rather you just go away than reply, frankly, because this entire time you've contributed a total of 0% to the argument. You came in, said "you think you're like mlk" (paraphrasing, sue me, on mobile), and I thought you were the guy I was actually talking to, and all we've done since then is argue wether or not you're the guy who said it during which you neglected to say "actually that was ragingrobot and while I don't agree with that I was simply curious about my obviously stupid question meant only to troll."
Feel free to fuck off anytime or start contributing to the actual argument, but the one we've been having is over.
You need help mate, you are not well. And stay away from firearms.
No u.