5 ms·
You won't get any satisfaction out of a discussion with someone who can't resist his totalitarian impulse to impute malice to those with whom he disagrees.
by QuarterReptile 4y ago
You won't get any satisfaction out of a discussion with someone who can't resist his totalitarian impulse to impute malice to those with whom he disagrees.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThey said, unironically, in a thread about pregnancy crisis centers using Google Ads as part of an effort to draw women to a physical location to persuade them, while under duress, to carry pregnancies they don't want, can't afford to support, and who will receive immaterial support from the state. That is objectively malice, and closer to totalitarian than advocating for the disenfranchised (imho). https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232137/ https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I
- tinus_hn 4y agoTrue, and also it’s rather frustrating to debate people who cheat, like in this case by silently altering the comment after I reply.
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoThat's his thing. When challenged he googles stuff that has a title that sounds like it backs his opinion. The ensuing debate about the article body being contradictory to his point moves the argument away from his point being poor and toward one of source legitimacy. It's a common rhetorical tactic. Were he not perpetually arguing for whatever is in fashion at any time he'd have been banned long ago for instigating flame wars.