Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.
I’m sorry that you don’t like being called out for kettle logic?
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in ‘50 state’ by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you’re on record?
I’m flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
No, it’s not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren’t working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.
They, by your own description, are not ‘turning around’ and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don’t support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn’t it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
Considering that I’m the one in this thread who’s objected to the map’s misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?
Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.
Nope. You are adding extra context that isn’t part of this and deciding you are allowed something because of others.
I’m just calling your way of interacting with others repugnant cause I am seeing it and it feels worth calling out.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
What was the point of that?
The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.
I’m sorry that you don’t like being called out for kettle logic?
lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in ‘50 state’ by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you’re on record?
I’m flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
No, it’s not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren’t working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.
They, by your own description, are not ‘turning around’ and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don’t support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn’t it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?
Considering that I’m the one in this thread who’s objected to the map’s misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?
Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.
Look, I know you’ve long ago tagged me the tankie and yourself as the chad, it’s whatever. But you need to stop calling yourself a shitlib.
removed by mod
Ew. What rude way to talk to people.
You’re right, mischaracterization and negative insinuations are only okay if you have the right tone.
Sorry that I don’t play asspat games.
Nope. You are adding extra context that isn’t part of this and deciding you are allowed something because of others.
I’m just calling your way of interacting with others repugnant cause I am seeing it and it feels worth calling out.