4 ms·

> My hope is I convince passersby That's just it, you don't, when your arguments are poor and your tone hostile. The only people who support you are people who

by troad 6mo ago

> My hope is I convince passersby That's just it, you don't, when your arguments are poor and your tone hostile. The only people who support you are people who already agreed with you; everyone else (the passerby moderate) is automatically repelled. > Vote Democrat. Leftists, MAGA, conservatives, libertarians, they all want to strip your rights in service of their weirdo ideology. Simple as that. Or, decide we're too rude and shamble into the gulag. Whatever I guess. It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up, it would be even worse under the other guys. It's pretty obvious when someone sees minorities as an adornment to their politics, and considers their actual needs and interests an irritant. Consider what kind of messed up version of left wing politics would talk that way to the people it ostensibly exists to represent. Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. The actual messy needs of the underprivileged are an inconvenience to your "right side of history" posturing. There's nothing noble about this. The MAGA crowd are just the red flavour of people like you.

camgunz 6mo ago
> That's just it, you don't You have no way of knowing this. > your arguments are poor You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. > your tone hostile I call it like I see it, in good faith. If you're offended, feel free to engage on the substance. Or you can make any real changes on your end contingent on meaningless tone changes on mine, but that would put you in the same basket as Friedersdorf, Thomas, et al: unwilling to engage in conversation and good faith debate. > It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence [sic] of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up That was over 30 years ago. Remember that one time we elected the first Black president, ran the first woman candidate for president, elected the first Black woman vice-president? Remember that one time we put the first Black woman on the bench? Remember that one time we got marriage rights for the LGBTQ community? Remember that one time we pushed for years to decriminalize and legalize cannabis and spare thousands and thousands of Black men meaningless prison sentences? Remember when we pushed through sentencing reform? Remember all our efforts to reform the immigration and asylum systems? Etc. etc. etc. If this is your summation of the benefits Democrats have had on minority populations since and including the Clinton era you are woefully ignorant. > Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks. Every accusation is a confession.
- troad 6mo ago
  > You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. Really? I suggest re-reading the exchange. > Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks That's a little rich, given all of your posts above are absolutely steeped in schoolyard insults. Do personal attacks somehow not count if they're directed at a third party? Is CF not a person to you? > Every accusation is a confession Wow, criminal prosecutors must commit a lot of murders then. This is the problem with your posts in a nutshell: all rhetorical flourishes, no substance. Nothing hangs together as a coherent argument, because it's not meant to, it's just meant to sound bombastic online.
  - camgunz 6mo ago
    > Really? I suggest re-reading the exchange. Anyone reading here can see all the points you let stand, from anything about reductio ad absurdum, to drug laws, to the intransigence of the right. Are we to the part of the thread where you just say things that are clearly untrue and hope no one has a memory longer than 5 seconds? > That's a little rich, given all of your posts above are absolutely steeped in schoolyard insults. Do personal attacks somehow not count if they're directed at a third party? Is CF not a person to you? In the same way I don't think a libertarian fortune cookie program is a person, I don't recognize Friedersdorf's personhood, no. I will crush his weird body like a dry snack and consume him for energy and pleasure, such is my appraisal of his full and total worth and consideration. > This is the problem with your posts in a nutshell: all rhetorical flourishes, no substance Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's cited 3rd party sources and Friedersdorf himself. I think if you're honest, you'll admit you're envious that I bring both style and substance. Not everyone can be great, Friedersdorf is a prime example of this, and I think he and others like him should take at least a minute to consider what a burden it is for people like me to shoulder the envy of the world.

by troad 6mo ago

camgunz 6mo ago

> That's just it, you don't You have no way of knowing this. > your arguments are poor You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. > your tone hostile I call it like I see it, in good faith. If you're offended, feel free to engage on the substance. Or you can make any real changes on your end contingent on meaningless tone changes on mine, but that would put you in the same basket as Friedersdorf, Thomas, et al: unwilling to engage in conversation and good faith debate. > It was very recently that Bill Clinton was signing in "welfare reform" and the Defence [sic] of Marriage Act, and minorities were told to shut up That was over 30 years ago. Remember that one time we elected the first Black president, ran the first woman candidate for president, elected the first Black woman vice-president? Remember that one time we put the first Black woman on the bench? Remember that one time we got marriage rights for the LGBTQ community? Remember that one time we pushed for years to decriminalize and legalize cannabis and spare thousands and thousands of Black men meaningless prison sentences? Remember when we pushed through sentencing reform? Remember all our efforts to reform the immigration and asylum systems? Etc. etc. etc. If this is your summation of the benefits Democrats have had on minority populations since and including the Clinton era you are woefully ignorant. > Nah, dude. Politics is lifestyle brand to you, and online toxicity is your form of cathartic self-expression. Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks. Every accusation is a confession.

troad 6mo ago
> You've yet to refute any of my arguments, focusing only on optics. Really? I suggest re-reading the exchange. > Of the two of us, only you have resorted to personal attacks That's a little rich, given all of your posts above are absolutely steeped in schoolyard insults. Do personal attacks somehow not count if they're directed at a third party? Is CF not a person to you? > Every accusation is a confession Wow, criminal prosecutors must commit a lot of murders then. This is the problem with your posts in a nutshell: all rhetorical flourishes, no substance. Nothing hangs together as a coherent argument, because it's not meant to, it's just meant to sound bombastic online.
- camgunz 6mo ago
  > Really? I suggest re-reading the exchange. Anyone reading here can see all the points you let stand, from anything about reductio ad absurdum, to drug laws, to the intransigence of the right. Are we to the part of the thread where you just say things that are clearly untrue and hope no one has a memory longer than 5 seconds? > That's a little rich, given all of your posts above are absolutely steeped in schoolyard insults. Do personal attacks somehow not count if they're directed at a third party? Is CF not a person to you? In the same way I don't think a libertarian fortune cookie program is a person, I don't recognize Friedersdorf's personhood, no. I will crush his weird body like a dry snack and consume him for energy and pleasure, such is my appraisal of his full and total worth and consideration. > This is the problem with your posts in a nutshell: all rhetorical flourishes, no substance Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's cited 3rd party sources and Friedersdorf himself. I think if you're honest, you'll admit you're envious that I bring both style and substance. Not everyone can be great, Friedersdorf is a prime example of this, and I think he and others like him should take at least a minute to consider what a burden it is for people like me to shoulder the envy of the world.