3 ms·
> No, I was agreeing with his rejection of your post. That's kinda nasty then, with the name-calling and all. > The rhetoric you air is the damaging, poisonou
by smosher_ 12y ago
> No, I was agreeing with his rejection of your post.
That's kinda nasty then, with the name-calling and all.
> The rhetoric you air is the damaging, poisonous kind that encourages disrespect to artists as living human beings because they don't martyr themselves.
That's bullshit. I've clarified myself, so you're now deliberately misinterpreting my words and presenting false choices. You can't tolerate a differing opinion and have to resort to namecalling and specious claims.
- eropple 12y agoI'm not misinterpreting you, I'm calling you dishonest. The people you conjure up do not exist in any quantity and you know this. The only reason to tie yourself to the rhetoric you do is to delegitimize the people who need to eat, much like other people (around here, no less) attempt to write off endemic societal problems around racism "because looters".
- smosher_ 12y agoYou describe me by directly contradicting my own statements. Now you're telling me I am lying about myself just so you can paint me as some particular kind of bogeyman? You could have had this conversation without me. Try accusing a mailbox of something as an outlet, perhaps? Or do you have a need to make people feel bad?