3 ms·

It shows the opposite, that there is so much of this going on.... > It's not useful, to anyone What's not useful to everyone is acting like you don't read the

It shows the opposite, that there is so much of this going on.... > It's not useful, to anyone What's not useful to everyone is acting like you don't read the news, can't read the news, or in the event that someone points out something in the news that you didn't, that you somehow cannot be availed of that knowledge in a way that doesn't render the argument moot. It's really stupid when you think about it that way. Plus, aren't we supposed to be making the effort of understanding each other here. Sitting in ignorance to insist you can't think of a single example isn't really making that effort.

nomel 4y ago
I covered your response, here, which appears to be accurate: > It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?". A stage was set where people can easily be placed into a box, created by an intentional lack of clarity. They can then be easily attack for not seeing things "as clearly" as they should. It's not possible for anything positive to come out of an exchange built in that context. By that, it's not useful, unless your goal is actually to create a negative exchange.
- freejazz 4y ago
  That's a much bigger assumption than assuming someone talking about contemporary news follows it.
  - nomel 4y ago
    I'd say it's a repeated observation of something incredibly consistent, whenever these discussions (and others) come up, more than a blind assumption. My prediction of your response, and you precisely following that prediction, being evidence that both of us have done this before. Maybe that pattern is intentional, or maybe it's emergent. I'll also claim to know the next part of the pattern, but I don't think you can complete the pattern, somewhere like this, and it definitely involves misplaced assumptions.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Often here people mistake plausibility for reasonability, I'm not surprised to see it occur here as well. You aren't being reasonable. None of your post is reasonable. You are relying upon plausible deniability to make your point, but it's entirely counter to the purpose of conversing here where we are supposed to try to make an effort to understand each other. I will repeat my point that when discussing a particular element of the news, it is reasonable to assume that someone partaking in the conversation is reasonably informed about that exact topic they are discussing. That assumption is eminently more reasonable than your assumption that it is a trap. It's actually laughable and speaks to your individual paranoia and unwillingness to discuss the topic in earnest.
      - nomel 4y ago
        Notice the extreme and complete change in your tone, and even phrasing! It's like your a completely different person. > we are supposed to try to make an effort to understand each other. My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now. > I will repeat my point that when discussing a particular element of the news As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread. The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you.
        freejazz 4y ago
        >Notice the extreme and complete change in your tone, and even phrasing! It's like your a completely different person. No change in my tone nor my point. >My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now. I literally offered an example that fit. >As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread. Yawn. >The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you. Be gaslight, then. It's all projection from you anyway.

nomel 4y ago

I covered your response, here, which appears to be accurate: > It's almost like it's used to preemptively set up a fight, with responses similar to yours, like "Well, you're not paying attention" or "How could you not know?". A stage was set where people can easily be placed into a box, created by an intentional lack of clarity. They can then be easily attack for not seeing things "as clearly" as they should. It's not possible for anything positive to come out of an exchange built in that context. By that, it's not useful, unless your goal is actually to create a negative exchange.

freejazz 4y ago
That's a much bigger assumption than assuming someone talking about contemporary news follows it.
- nomel 4y ago
  I'd say it's a repeated observation of something incredibly consistent, whenever these discussions (and others) come up, more than a blind assumption. My prediction of your response, and you precisely following that prediction, being evidence that both of us have done this before. Maybe that pattern is intentional, or maybe it's emergent. I'll also claim to know the next part of the pattern, but I don't think you can complete the pattern, somewhere like this, and it definitely involves misplaced assumptions.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Often here people mistake plausibility for reasonability, I'm not surprised to see it occur here as well. You aren't being reasonable. None of your post is reasonable. You are relying upon plausible deniability to make your point, but it's entirely counter to the purpose of conversing here where we are supposed to try to make an effort to understand each other. I will repeat my point that when discussing a particular element of the news, it is reasonable to assume that someone partaking in the conversation is reasonably informed about that exact topic they are discussing. That assumption is eminently more reasonable than your assumption that it is a trap. It's actually laughable and speaks to your individual paranoia and unwillingness to discuss the topic in earnest.
    - nomel 4y ago
      Notice the extreme and complete change in your tone, and even phrasing! It's like your a completely different person. > we are supposed to try to make an effort to understand each other. My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now. > I will repeat my point that when discussing a particular element of the news As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread. The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        >Notice the extreme and complete change in your tone, and even phrasing! It's like your a completely different person. No change in my tone nor my point. >My first comment was asking for clarification, so discussion could be had. You made no efforts, and resisted, until now. I literally offered an example that fit. >As my first comment stated, the problem is that no particular element was discussed. I suggest re-reading this thread. Yawn. >The rest of your post is a textbook example of gaslighting, so I'm choosing to remove myself from this thread now. But, I sincerely wish the best for you. Be gaslight, then. It's all projection from you anyway.