4 ms·

You literally quoted me

BobbyJo 4y ago
I said A. You tried to divert to B. I quoted part of B to point out that wasn't the topic. You said the topic had changed to B "long ago". You see how that's wild right?
imwillofficial 4y ago
I didn’t “try to divert to b” I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. That a healthy debate does not arise from essentially claiming somebody is brainwashed. Not very wild, right?
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  If you had stopped at your first sentence, and only made the point that: > I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. But instead you went on to talk about other events and lay down some whataboutism, and talk about the dirtiest hands. That's where you diverted. If you are going to walk that back and stick to just criticizing my presumption on the source of their argument, then fair enough. However, my statement wasn't a blind malicious assumption. Defensive actions shouldn't be compared to 'poking the bear.' If the bear has already attacked, how can you consider fighting back a provocation? How can you consider "cyber defense", specifically, provocative? The only place I've yet to see that comparison is in troll propaganda, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense, and it works in favor of the aggressor. When I see someone spouting statements that make no logical sense, and those statements mirror those of propaganda trolls, I'm not doing some horrible disservice to discourse by pointing out a potential relationship.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    The concerns of this not being an unprompted attack, vs a self defense based move is a valid one worthy of debate, regardless of your views on the subject, or mine frankly. I have only grown in my understanding by people bringing diverse and often controversial opinions to the table. I walk back nothing.

I said A. You tried to divert to B. I quoted part of B to point out that wasn't the topic. You said the topic had changed to B "long ago". You see how that's wild right?

imwillofficial 4y ago

I didn’t “try to divert to b” I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. That a healthy debate does not arise from essentially claiming somebody is brainwashed. Not very wild, right?

BobbyJo 4y ago
If you had stopped at your first sentence, and only made the point that: > I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. But instead you went on to talk about other events and lay down some whataboutism, and talk about the dirtiest hands. That's where you diverted. If you are going to walk that back and stick to just criticizing my presumption on the source of their argument, then fair enough. However, my statement wasn't a blind malicious assumption. Defensive actions shouldn't be compared to 'poking the bear.' If the bear has already attacked, how can you consider fighting back a provocation? How can you consider "cyber defense", specifically, provocative? The only place I've yet to see that comparison is in troll propaganda, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense, and it works in favor of the aggressor. When I see someone spouting statements that make no logical sense, and those statements mirror those of propaganda trolls, I'm not doing some horrible disservice to discourse by pointing out a potential relationship.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  The concerns of this not being an unprompted attack, vs a self defense based move is a valid one worthy of debate, regardless of your views on the subject, or mine frankly. I have only grown in my understanding by people bringing diverse and often controversial opinions to the table. I walk back nothing.