mbtrhcs @ mbtrhcs @feddit.org

Posts

0

Comments

75

Joined

12 mo. ago

...what? How do you expect them to demonstrate their intelligence within the span of a single comment, without telling you? This "comeback" doesn't work if their intelligence constitutes actually relevant context.

Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never "right". You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I'm sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.

That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?

There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated

And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is "vermin" and immigrants "poison the blood"; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called "unhuman". Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?

Which is what the original commenter already indicated they think as well.

They've already started:

The artists I like don't put out CDs with their music so no.

Apple Music allows you to add arbitrary audio files to your cloud-synced library. I believe it will even generate streaming revenue for the artist if the file is recognized to also be in the catalog of iTunes Match (but I'm not sure on that one).

I suppose that's fair, but if you e.g. make a compelling counterpoint and the other person fixates on one small detail to derail the conversation, I think the people you can realistically reach will already be on your side, and anyone who wants to draw some kind of false equivalence between your respective positions wasn't going to be convinced anyways.

It's more nuanced than that of course, but in my experience that's generally the way these things play out as the thread gets longer.

I'm 6'5 but I'm also German. Is that ok?

If someone is literally arguing in bad faith, what's the point in engaging with them? There's no way to persuade someone who doesn't actually care about what they're saying in the first place.

Some Left Winger sees a Right Winger say something they don't like. The Left Winger can't counter it

Many right wing positions are very easy to counter with scientific evidence– climate change, crime rates, public health policy, social programs...

So if you think the "Left Winger" can't counter it.. do you not consider evidence-based arguments to be legitimate?

Imagine telling Palestinian civilians "maybe you live, maybe you don't, it's not a negotiation"

disgusting

She also made calls for ceasefire back in March, which indicates to me that she would be at least a fair bit left of Biden

So you're using the Palestinian genocide as pretense to further an agenda completely unrelated to it, got it. If you actually cared, you would understand how effective this kind of dehumanization is in generating support for the murder of a people.

Trump literally used the word Palestinian as a derogatory insult in the debate, if that's not enough for you to get the hint you are beyond help my guy