Oh I get it, you just like to keep saying that it’s is not your argument and then you talk about semantics. I will just skip this because you have already said it and it is boring.
I like that you start referencing history yourself though, I appreciate the nod even if it is unintentional.
You remind me of all those sycophants for Drump who are always saying he didn’t mean that or he clarified himself later on. The kind of capitalist bootlicker that pretends to be a communist because it’s edgy. Hey whatever floats your boat I guess.
I think his original statement stands just fine on its own and I think I have made it clear why it is so distasteful.
As someone who was seriously considering signing up for their service seeing them suck up to the right wing is very worrying. I have already left every other social media platform because of their toxic behavior.
At any rate it appears we agree on everything except your obsession with semantics. Stay shifty!
I like that you start referencing history yourself tho
Please, please tell me you are not referring to highlighting what the guy wrote.
To be honest I don’t care what I remind you off. You hallucinate worse than chatGPT, and you seem to have really hard time reading what other people write, both me and Andy Yen.
You are one of the many people whose heart is in the right place, but for some reason feel the need to make stuff up to make their argument more compelling. It’s not an “obsession for semantics”, it’s an allergy for bullshit.
First and foremost from the start you literally made no sense. That shift nonsense is like an asspie’s fever dream. It may be that you are ESL, or just lack a general grasp on conversation.
Conversations are dynamic and constantly change. The entire time you were stuck at the begining unable to move on or offer actual real opinions. You feigned it is not my argument, but the reality is you just have nothing.
Speaking of Chatgpt perhaps you should use it to help with your responses. Reword everything of course. I would much rather talk with a language model than someone who wants to attempt to argue semantics.
You are one of those people who have nothing to say. An apologist without an opinion who just latches onto whatever comes along. But I think your heart is in the right place. Like I said, I think we probably agree on everything.
Everything except this dumb motherfucker trying to pretend that it is opposite day. God damn the sides have flipped nonsense and now the Republicans are going after big business has to be one of the stupidest takes I have ever heard.
You are so wise. It only you simply acknowledged the first point without moving the goalpost and adding random stuff everytime.
I have never been interested in discussing opinions with you, I wanted to point out that your line of reasoning made no sense. However, you couldn’t critically reflect on your fallacy and you tried making stuff up to drag me into a conversation.
attempt to argue semantics
I didn’t attempt, I did. And I didn’t argue semantics, I argue logic.
Like I said it is a conversation. It is dynamic and it changes. I explained you have nothing, no need to climb on your high horse and ride off all pissy.
You see you were just wrong from the beginning. I still chose to share my opinions and time with you regardless of your lack of reciprocation.
A conversation you never decided to engage, only to derail because apparently for you it must be really hard to say that you didn’t read the post completely, or that you missed something. You did clear mistakes (factual, logical, not opinions) in such a brief conversation, but somehow you are acting all wise “conversations change”. Sure they do, when you want to change topic because saying " yep, in retrospective it was stupid mentioning the last 50 years and I didn’t consider how much the argument I wanted to debate relies on a supposed change that I disagree happened". This is pretty much all there was to say. I did for you, so now I can go live in peace.
Oh I get it, you just like to keep saying that it’s is not your argument and then you talk about semantics. I will just skip this because you have already said it and it is boring.
I like that you start referencing history yourself though, I appreciate the nod even if it is unintentional.
You remind me of all those sycophants for Drump who are always saying he didn’t mean that or he clarified himself later on. The kind of capitalist bootlicker that pretends to be a communist because it’s edgy. Hey whatever floats your boat I guess.
I think his original statement stands just fine on its own and I think I have made it clear why it is so distasteful.
As someone who was seriously considering signing up for their service seeing them suck up to the right wing is very worrying. I have already left every other social media platform because of their toxic behavior.
At any rate it appears we agree on everything except your obsession with semantics. Stay shifty!
Please, please tell me you are not referring to highlighting what the guy wrote.
To be honest I don’t care what I remind you off. You hallucinate worse than chatGPT, and you seem to have really hard time reading what other people write, both me and Andy Yen.
You are one of the many people whose heart is in the right place, but for some reason feel the need to make stuff up to make their argument more compelling. It’s not an “obsession for semantics”, it’s an allergy for bullshit.
First and foremost from the start you literally made no sense. That shift nonsense is like an asspie’s fever dream. It may be that you are ESL, or just lack a general grasp on conversation.
Conversations are dynamic and constantly change. The entire time you were stuck at the begining unable to move on or offer actual real opinions. You feigned it is not my argument, but the reality is you just have nothing.
Speaking of Chatgpt perhaps you should use it to help with your responses. Reword everything of course. I would much rather talk with a language model than someone who wants to attempt to argue semantics.
You are one of those people who have nothing to say. An apologist without an opinion who just latches onto whatever comes along. But I think your heart is in the right place. Like I said, I think we probably agree on everything.
Everything except this dumb motherfucker trying to pretend that it is opposite day. God damn the sides have flipped nonsense and now the Republicans are going after big business has to be one of the stupidest takes I have ever heard.
You are so wise. It only you simply acknowledged the first point without moving the goalpost and adding random stuff everytime.
I have never been interested in discussing opinions with you, I wanted to point out that your line of reasoning made no sense. However, you couldn’t critically reflect on your fallacy and you tried making stuff up to drag me into a conversation.
I didn’t attempt, I did. And I didn’t argue semantics, I argue logic.
Anyway, thanks. Cya
Like I said it is a conversation. It is dynamic and it changes. I explained you have nothing, no need to climb on your high horse and ride off all pissy.
You see you were just wrong from the beginning. I still chose to share my opinions and time with you regardless of your lack of reciprocation.
I do appreciate you.
A conversation you never decided to engage, only to derail because apparently for you it must be really hard to say that you didn’t read the post completely, or that you missed something. You did clear mistakes (factual, logical, not opinions) in such a brief conversation, but somehow you are acting all wise “conversations change”. Sure they do, when you want to change topic because saying " yep, in retrospective it was stupid mentioning the last 50 years and I didn’t consider how much the argument I wanted to debate relies on a supposed change that I disagree happened". This is pretty much all there was to say. I did for you, so now I can go live in peace.