• Kit Sorens
      link
      fedilink
      English
      242 years ago

      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.

        • Kit Sorens
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          I didn’t. Pretty based tho, ngl. Did you cry about it?

        • YeetPics
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          Don’t be mad db0 sank to your level. Get dunked on or whatever

      • Kuori [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        612 years ago

        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

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            34
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

            • db0OPM
              link
              fedilink
              52 years ago

              I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sealion so mad before.

              • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                232 years ago

                I’ve never seen an Inco DeNiro Factsum Glish Galoop Slish Slosh No True Strawman Fallacy used so blantantly

                • db0OPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  52 years ago

                  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.

          • jaywalker [they/them, any]
            link
            fedilink
            252 years ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              52 years ago

              Well for several reasons.

              1. You have to find someone who actually wants to have a good faith argument with you.

              2. 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.

              3. Actually be able to go through your inbox and find the replies of the person you think is actually acting in good faith.

              4. Be in the mood to argue in good faith. Which is unlikely from the begining, basically impossible at the end.

        • Kit Sorens
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          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.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            17
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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

            • Kit Sorens
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42 years ago

              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.