You’re claiming that you argue from a valid point of citing your arguments, and presented zero citation. The person the replied to needed no citations for their argument because they presented ideas, not facts. You’re raging trying to tell people to cite things but you’re sitting in your tower without presenting citations. You’re a ragebait clown 🤡
It's unclear whether you're deliberately misinterpreting InappropriateEmote or whether you simply don't understand them. Either way, it seems sensible to quote the text that you're replying to:
When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of “always throwing walls of text at people.” When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we “only have simplistic takes.”
This means that when Hexbear users present a longer argument with references, they get accused of writing walls of text. In response to this criticism, there is another approach: short and pithy responses.
InappropriateEmote is unambiguously saying that in this example they went with option 2, a short and pithy response. They are not claiming to have provided a longer argument with references.
This was said in response to a quip intended to shut down the discussion rather than deal with a critique:
Oh a hexbear. … You lot only have overly simplistic takes.
The alternative (dealing with the substance of the claim) would have required accepting all the other evidence that the US is both arms dealer and directly involved in running the Ukraine war and directing where it's dealt arms go. Again as with yours, there was an attempt to decontextualize what a Hexbear user said so as to dismiss the overall argument without addressing it's crucial features.
It is entirely unclear what point you're trying to make by distinguishing ideas from facts. Unless it's a weird brag about being grounded in unfounded opinion rather than fact, which, if it is, is not the argument you think it is.
For those interested, the dual use loophole is how the yanks supplied Saddam when he fought Iran and used chemical weapons against the Kurds. A conbination of dual use and swaps through intermediaries. Nowadays the US didn't give as much of a fuck and instead manufactures reasons for why it's okay to ship direct.
In that case, at least know that while you're talking to one person in particular, you might still be reaching a wider audience that is paying attention, even if they don't engage.
For people who inhabit the world of the ideal, it comes as natural as breathing. If they think it, it must be true, and there's nothing more to be said. It's how they can define war by an arbitrary number of deaths, how they can think away unemployment or unnecessary Covid deaths, or how they think unemployment into China by including children and students. The worst thing is that liberals under the illusion that they 'think critically' will gobble it all up like a shark to a bucket of chum.
If we took this approach to those other germs and viruses that you mention, quality of life and life expectancy would plummet as fast as infant mortality shot up. There's nothing special about Covid in that regard except that it needs more respect than many other issues.
Edit: I edited my comment because I was a bit rude. I apologise for that.
One thing that I have to do so as not to get drawn in is not so much touching grass but sorting by local by default and sorting by subscribed manually (and not subscribing to the news comms that attract liberals). That's still the same kind of non-solution of 'just don't participate'. But at least it gives you some control over not sorting by all, so you can browse but limit how much you're exposed to people who might exhaust you.
Another thing is sorting by new by default and popping in to new threads but not engaging. Then sort by hot/active/top XYZ to see which threads got a lot of comments. If you engage in the most active threads after comrades have made the trolls 'show their cards', it might be easier to identify who is best to avoid. Someone who deliberately misinterprets others isn't going to be worth your time.
That doesn't necessarily make it easier for you not to try to convert them: would you be able to not engage in the first place if you already knew the person was insincere?
Good question. I was trying to find some books on this topic. I found this about the political economy of Ukraine: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57690-3. I'm unsure what is like as I haven't got round to it yet.
You said:
It's unclear whether you're deliberately misinterpreting InappropriateEmote or whether you simply don't understand them. Either way, it seems sensible to quote the text that you're replying to:
This means that when Hexbear users present a longer argument with references, they get accused of writing walls of text. In response to this criticism, there is another approach: short and pithy responses.
InappropriateEmote is unambiguously saying that in this example they went with option 2, a short and pithy response. They are not claiming to have provided a longer argument with references.
This was said in response to a quip intended to shut down the discussion rather than deal with a critique:
The alternative (dealing with the substance of the claim) would have required accepting all the other evidence that the US is both arms dealer and directly involved in running the Ukraine war and directing where it's dealt arms go. Again as with yours, there was an attempt to decontextualize what a Hexbear user said so as to dismiss the overall argument without addressing it's crucial features.
It is entirely unclear what point you're trying to make by distinguishing ideas from facts. Unless it's a weird brag about being grounded in unfounded opinion rather than fact, which, if it is, is not the argument you think it is.