I’ve only experienced that from them since I’ve known them. Not one wants a good faith discussion until you grovel to their fundamentalist tripe. Unity to them means blindly following their half-understood theories of centuries-dead men, and anyone who questions a lick of it gets the 4chan swarm treatment.
When they don’t have a counterargument, they attack your character. It shows just how strong their foundation of understanding is that a simple debate or differing viewpoint is a dire threat to their entire worldview. It’s extremely pathetic tbh.
I think they just observed that you generally ignored the counterarguments and correctly concluded that presenting yet another to you is absurd, but of course you pick that as the comment you respond to
Also calling someone a dweeb isn’t a character attack, like calling them a moron isn’t.
I’d fucking love to talk with someone here on terms of argument and counterargument, but that is considered “sealioning” by every fucker I’ve encountered so far on this worthless anarcho-bidenist instance
Any form of name-calling or declaration in regards to the individual and not the subject of debate is an appeal to character, and is the last resort of those who can’t support their claim, second to violence.
If I have “ignored” responses, it is because my app has not notified me that I have a response to a comment. To my knowledge, I have responded in-kind to every comment regarding this post, and even if I hadn’t, one cannot be compelled to respond to every argument or point. It is entirely reasonable for me, on my own judgement, to deem a reply to be a waste of time or nothing worth adding to or drawing attention toward.
Lastly, if you would like to make a claim and prove good faith, please do so here or in DMs. I would love to discuss philosophy and ethics. But let’s do so in our own words. Quoting Manifestos will be just as effective to a productive discussion as quoting religious scripture. Convince me. Don’t beat me with a dead man’s words.
No, good faith argument is being a debatelord, as was explained to me at length in the last post. People who just happen to see the post and respond are all brigading if they come from an instance that has a cross-post. Them’s the rules.
Don’t bullshit me that there is a proper way to argue with that fucker, he demonstrated at length that there was not.
Why can’t an OP have a good faith argument if the post gets “brigaded”? That doesn’t really make sense to me. Anyone can choose to argue in good faith regardless of how the other party behaves.
Sounds like they unified against you fairly well.
That they did.
I’ve only experienced that from them since I’ve known them. Not one wants a good faith discussion until you grovel to their fundamentalist tripe. Unity to them means blindly following their half-understood theories of centuries-dead men, and anyone who questions a lick of it gets the 4chan swarm treatment.
what part of db0’s crosspost was calling for good faith discussion? Did you look at it? https://lemmy.ml/comment/5783449
Don’t be mad db0 sank to your level. Get dunked on or whatever
I didn’t. Pretty based tho, ngl. Did you cry about it?
You’re a dweeb and should quit posting.
When they don’t have a counterargument, they attack your character. It shows just how strong their foundation of understanding is that a simple debate or differing viewpoint is a dire threat to their entire worldview. It’s extremely pathetic tbh.
I think they just observed that you generally ignored the counterarguments and correctly concluded that presenting yet another to you is absurd, but of course you pick that as the comment you respond to
Also calling someone a dweeb isn’t a character attack, like calling them a moron isn’t.
I’d fucking love to talk with someone here on terms of argument and counterargument, but that is considered “sealioning” by every fucker I’ve encountered so far on this worthless anarcho-bidenist instance
Any form of name-calling or declaration in regards to the individual and not the subject of debate is an appeal to character, and is the last resort of those who can’t support their claim, second to violence.
If I have “ignored” responses, it is because my app has not notified me that I have a response to a comment. To my knowledge, I have responded in-kind to every comment regarding this post, and even if I hadn’t, one cannot be compelled to respond to every argument or point. It is entirely reasonable for me, on my own judgement, to deem a reply to be a waste of time or nothing worth adding to or drawing attention toward.
Lastly, if you would like to make a claim and prove good faith, please do so here or in DMs. I would love to discuss philosophy and ethics. But let’s do so in our own words. Quoting Manifestos will be just as effective to a productive discussion as quoting religious scripture. Convince me. Don’t beat me with a dead man’s words.
OP literally did not attempt to have any discussion of any kind, and explicitly said they had no interest in doing so
that’s the definition of “not in good faith” homie
Can’t exactly have a good faith argument if the post gets brigaded.
Can’t have a good faith argument with people we have no faith in. Eat shit
Obviously.
Faith is earned, OP tipped the scale against themselves real fast.
No, good faith argument is being a debatelord, as was explained to me at length in the last post. People who just happen to see the post and respond are all brigading if they come from an instance that has a cross-post. Them’s the rules.
Don’t bullshit me that there is a proper way to argue with that fucker, he demonstrated at length that there was not.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sealion so mad before.
Strawman
Fuck off, all you can do is call names and be smug, there is no point talking to you
You literally came into my thread and started insulting me to third parties, baby. Don’t act all huffy when you take what you give.
You’re clearly angry because I didn’t engage with your sealioning. Take a break. Not everyone owes you attention.
I’ve never seen an Inco DeNiro Factsum Glish Galoop Slish Slosh No True Strawman Fallacy used so blantantly
-Le Epic Redditeur
Why can’t an OP have a good faith argument if the post gets “brigaded”? That doesn’t really make sense to me. Anyone can choose to argue in good faith regardless of how the other party behaves.
Well for several reasons.
You have to find someone who actually wants to have a good faith argument with you.
You have to be disciplined enough to only argue with them, as you will expend energy arguing with the 500 other commenters who are just trolling you.
Actually be able to go through your inbox and find the replies of the person you think is actually acting in good faith.
Be in the mood to argue in good faith. Which is unlikely from the begining, basically impossible at the end.
This isn’t fucking reddit, “brigading” is not a real thing.
Yeah it’s almost like OP uno reversed