I see your “everything is Jewish” posts and I raise you the worst I’ve ever seenSubmitted by sammyf0712 t3_1230mvh in springfieldMO
budtoast t1_je1v1gk wrote
Reply to comment by inadril in I see your “everything is Jewish” posts and I raise you the worst I’ve ever seen by sammyf0712
Nope, you assumed what I meant by “them.”
I did bring up the right. Because they exist and they are most relevant here
I brought up that BOTH parties are not to be listened to. Especially republicans in this circumstance. You claimed that I was specifically talking about only republicans.
I did not change any goalposts and if I did, point out where. My point has always been the same. I’m apolitical, and anyone with eyes can see that the bags prey on conservative values. I encourage you to go back through the comments, because I did, and I’m noticing the sheer amount of times you just conviently ignored every point I make while I try to actually discuss your’s.
So who’s really debating here?
You didn’t address anything I said or highlighted, as expected. I did not put any words in your mouth, but you certainly have been doing that.
You’re still busy thinking about what YOU think I believe. You assumed so much about me from the beginning. Meanwhile I used if statements and openly said I am not sure what your political beliefs are, but that trying to get people to listen to republicans is a bad idea.
> “If you agree with those who disagree with me now, I’m nervous for your future. You’ve had ample time to listen to those on the left and change your perspective. If you’re not more center after that, I’m afraid you didn’t listen.”
When I said this, I’m not directly calling you a conservative, nor am I virtue signaling. I gave an example of harmful beliefs I had in the past and how I disavow them. If someone doesn’t disavow them in this day and age, I’m concerned for them. And I believe that if you truly want to listen to people like you say, you’d end up being more center than one way leaning. And my statement started with “If” which means, “IF you hold conservative beliefs…” (this is to point out that I never called you in particular a conservative)
Your comment was this in direct reference to specifically conservatives:
>”I see you don’t pay attention to those who don’t agree with you”
You are encouraging people to give republicans a chance, are you not? If you are not, tell me. I’ve said this entire time, I’m apolitical, I don’t think you should be trying to encourage people to listen to any one side, and if you are you’d be a hypocrite for leaning a specific way.
Here is where I think you’re trying to claim I’m a liar. You had this conversation before this:
>”Every republican accusation is a confession”
>”Same could be said of any political leaning”
>”No the fuck it can’t”
Then you say your part of listening to them, hearing them out, saying that this person is stupid for ignoring republican values. (“I see you don’t pay attention to people who don’t agree with you”) I chime in saying my piece, which is to break down the idea that we have to listen to the parties at all. And that in these circumstances, speaking up about “paying attention” to republicans on a post involving targeting republican opinions, I am worried for you. Especially if you’re someone who is apolitical and wanting to reject the parties altogether. That’s genuine worry because, again, as you seem to agree- the parties are echo chambers.
You decided to take what I said and assume virtue signaling and lying and making you look bad. You look fine. No one cares about how you look. No one is even looking at this thread
I’m trying to understand why you decided to go in circles and ignore the point this entire time. But I think it’s just because you can’t deny that these bags do, in fact, target conservatives. Don’t listen to them. Don’t give them a chance to “broaden your horizons.”
Anyone who calls themselves “conservative”, “republican”, “democrat”, “liberal” etc is obviously extremely party affiliated and therefore, their opinion is likely surrounded by echo chambers. I believe you’ve been trying to say that same thing but in a more esoteric way, as if I need to be enlightened by the position that the parties are nonsense. I know that.
This is from my first few replies to you:
>”You can be against the left. But if you think conservatives are against authoritarian ideals enough to try and defend them here, you’re just factually wrong (hence “if you’re not more center after that, you didn’t listen” from my first comment to you)”
I think my point was made fairly well during the beginning. Perhaps I should have said “defend listening to them here” but I’m afraid that’s a bit nit picky. You seemed to be defending the idea of hearing out republican opinions, saying “you don’t pay attention to anyone you disagree with.” I said “I don’t listen to party affiliated people, especially republicans because they are for authoritarian values” and now you’re trying to break down my debate style and tell me what I believe or something regarding the parties. If you disagree with this assessment, tell me how and why.
inadril t1_je2rsk5 wrote
Okay. I’m going to ignore everything I just read.
Your entire premise is flawed.
So let’s get to the heart of it, shall we?
“I see you don’t pay attention to those who disagree with you”.
“attention noun 1 the issue clearly needs further attention: OBSERVATION, attentiveness, intentness, notice, concentration, heed, heedfulness, mindfulness, regard, scrutiny; contemplation, consideration, deliberation, thought, thinking, studying, investigation, action.”
”pay attention an assortment of motivational tools is necessary to keep them in class and paying attention: LISTEN, be attentive, attend, concentrate on, concentrate on hearing, give ear to, lend an ear to; hang on someone's words.”
disagree verb 1 no one was willing to disagree with him: FAIL TO AGREE, be in dispute/contention, be at variance/odds, not see eye to eye, differ from, dissent from, diverge from; contradict, gainsay, challenge, oppose; argue, debate, quarrel, bicker, wrangle, squabble, spar, dispute, take issue, row, altercate, clash, be at loggerheads, cross swords, lock horns; informal fall out, have words, scrap; archaic disaccord. ANTONYMS agree”
Nowhere did I reference a specific party, save “you” and “those who disagree”.
To whom, then, could “attention” and “disagree” possibly be referring when the two participants disagreed?
As to the rest of the comment, “Enjoy your bliss” is a direct reference to “Ignorance is bliss”.
“ignorance noun 1 his ignorance of economics: INCOMPREHENSION, unawareness, unconsciousness, inexperience, innocence; unfamiliarity with, lack of enlightenment about, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; informal cluelessness; literary nescience. ANTONYMS knowledge, education
2 their attitudes are based on ignorance and fear: LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, lack of education; unenlightenment, benightedness; lack of intelligence, unintelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy, denseness, brainlessness, mindlessness, slow-wittedness; informal thickness, dimness, dumbness, dopiness, doziness. ANTONYMS knowledge, education”
Personally, I prefer the short definition given by a friend from Australia. “It’s an insult meaning ‘unknowledgeable and too lazy or unwilling to study or learn anything’”. Unfortunately it doesn’t apply here.
Oh, I picked a special one too. Taylor made for you.
“Debate noun I would welcome a debate on the reforms I there is renewed debate about NATO's defense role: DISCUSSION, exchange of views, discourse, parley; argument, dispute, wrangle, altercation, war of words; arguing, argumentation, wrangling, sparring, disputation, dissension, disagreement, controversy, contention, conflict, disharmony; negotiations, talks; dialogue, comment, interest; informal confabrap session; rare velitation, contestation.
verb 1 the board debated his proposal: DISCUSS, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot; informal kick around, bat around; archaic altercate.”
Shall I define every word of both original replies or are you done misrepresent them?
budtoast t1_je2sr9g wrote
Whatever you say. You refuse to tackle any actual points. This is a waste of time.
inadril t1_je2tj0e wrote
No, I refuse continue to address your ever increasing pile of irrelevant points based on misrepresentation of what I said.
Because I’d be writing a book on your previous comment alone.
budtoast t1_je2tpos wrote
I addressed what you said. You just spent forever defining words. Move on.
This was a waste of time and you made it that. I wanted to be productive here and say my piece and that’s all, which I’ve successfully done I guess. So goodbye. Wish I had actual responses from you.
inadril t1_je2w0wi wrote
You addressed your own misrepresentation of what I said.
It was going to be a waste of time from the beginning and I indulged you because I didn’t understand how you could possibly conclude anything other than the plain, simple english originally put forth.
Defining words was apparently necessary.
budtoast t1_je2w5rz wrote
No, it really wasn’t. You didn’t address the actual arguments because you don’t have one. Bye.
Make one or stop replying
inadril t1_je2zeu1 wrote
It really was.
And then you argued with yourself so much there wasn’t really much for me to do. I will admit it was impressive how many straw men you could defeat simultaneously.
I’ll take that last to mean you want that book.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments