Usually they start by spreading rumors that get aggressively worse. Then, they make sure people who could impact your ability to live hear those rumors -- current and future employers/coworkers.
.
Then, whether that's effective or not, they'll target your family.
.
They'll make threats and possibly show up where you live/dox your address online. Send shit
.
They keep this behavior up until they make sure you have nothing left. And then they'll act surprised when you kill yourself, and claim they were the real victims all along
I feel like if they're going to do an exhibit a, they should really have picked something that was actually an example of what was being talked about lol.
.
The guy in the "exhibit" didn't say anyone on the left was evil etc. He said they have a greater propensity to label people who disagree with them as evil. And in his experience that may well be correct.
.
Idk about other people. People on the right have typically labelled me either a communist or stupid.
.
People on the Left, meanwhile... well, they've labelled me... let's see... Nazi, gender-traitor, Race-traitor, racist, privileged, feminist, anti-feminist, TERF, colonizer, Trump-supporter, white supremacist, pedophile, transphobe, homophobe, a victim of internalized misogyny, a misogynist, and a dozen other titles (though oddly never a partridge in a pear tree).
.
.
Belated apologies to all the sincerely confused who take me pointing out my own experience as the same as calling people evil for their political opinions lol
Hard not to agree with this. I know a lot of Conservatives who just want to be left alone and I know a lot of Liberals that want everyone to toe the line and will be very vocal about your character if you don't.
I think that the real story. The spectrum goes both ways. There’s ridiculous radical left and ridiculous radical right. There’s moderates on both sides. There’s folks that lean one way or another but don’t want to deal with the crap from the others on that side and folks that lean one way or the other and wish they had the courage to dish out the crap. And there’s evil people on both sides. But generally, even if you think the people on the opposite side stand for something evil, that’s not the case. They firmly believe that they are doing /upholding what is Best for the people. Everyone is just trying to do their best—we all have different ideas about what that is.
I think it depends on the environment.
Years ago, I've joined the platform Minds. It was a sort of big thing back then in internet circles, advertised as THE true free speech platform, and that's legitimately what its creators stood for (I've communicated with one of them, great dude). The problem is, it very soon became flooded with very far right authoritarian people who were either banned or "mobbed" off other platforms. And they made Minds their echo chamber. When I made a post that basically only said "there's a lot of very far right people, I hope there will be nice open discourse and it won't become an echo chamber", I've been called so many things I can't even list them all in like five comments. Commie, government spy, bot, plus a ton of misogynistic and homophobic (I'm not even gay but apparently it's an insult in these circles) shit that's too vile to repeat. Never have I been called anything even close to that level of vileness by a leftie that I disagreed with.
However it's clear that other people have different experiences and I guess it's dependent on the platform you're using. For instance Twitter is full of liberals who claim they're lefties even though they barely know what a union is but will bash you if you say stuff like "trans people should have their own category in sports" or something. Which is in my opinion a very interesting phenomenon, they're technically not extremists but they act like extremists. Good thing I don't use Twitter anymore. And for that matter, I don't use Minds either. I left when the main page became flooded with posts like "Jews make up X% of the population but more in leadership, we should do something about it". That's when I decided the majority of the users couldn't actually be reasoned with and I'd only give myself an aneurysm if I tried. I wonder if it's still like that now, maybe I should revisit it haha.
I don't really have a specific point here, just that it's context dependent and you'll probably have different experiences on different platforms. However people scurrying off to their different echo chambers is imo wrong too, and possibly responsible for the phenomenon, because people aren't used to their opinions being challenged if they close themselves in their echo chamber. But I don't really know what the solution would be.
Also I'd like to point out it's in my experience not quite correct to label this a generational or recent issue. Sure, as I said social media probably exacerbates it, but a lot of people who I've met that are my grandmother's age (including my grandmother haha) are exactly like that. They take disagreement as a personal attack and will start attacking your person very early in the discussion, instead of your points. But idk maybe this is just a central European thing.
TL;DR let's just all have discourse and not be dicks to each other eh?
^I'm gonna say your call for reasonableness falls fairly flat when you are literally one of the people who all but outright called me a TERF when I disagreed with you lol (you skirted around outright saying it, rather implying I was LIKE one)
.
.
Though, again, I never said there weren't reasonable people on both sides. That's nowhere near what I said. I said in my experience people on the left have been far quicker to resort to literally labelling someone they disagree with an actual villain (or slur on par with that), and people on the right have been more inclined to just label me stupid.
.
And the point there being that saying you experience more hate on one side than the other is not the same as saying "everyone on that side is evil," like the big brain at the bottom of the post implies. They're not the same thing, so as an example it doesn't work.
@xvarnah , I think ‘the other side is more quick to call my side evil’ is a matter of perspective too. Because, I am certainly more liberal leaning and in my experience the other side is more quick to call people who think like me evil hedonists.
Which of us is right? Quite simply, we both are. Lefties are more likely to slander the righties and righties are more likely to slander the lefties. I don’t hear the lefties talking trash as often as I hear the righties because they aren’t saying it to me. At least that’s what I assume because I have no grounds to invalidate the experience of anyone else.
The best we can do for each other is try to understand one another, try to understand where the other comes from and not perpetuate the behavior we are insulted/hurt/angered/annoyed by.
Yes? I said it was a matter of perspective haha. "In his experience" and "in my experience."
.
In my experience right leaners that consider me left-leaning have been no less inclined to insult me -- but the language they use has been far less "something wicked this way comes." Nazi, for example. There is almost no way to interpret Nazi that doesn't equate back to a supremacist that indoctrinated children and commited genocide against others. That's what that word MEANS for all intents and purposes. Evil.
.
Racist. TERF. Sexist. Phobic. Pedophile. Rape-enablist. Gender Traitor. Race Traitor. Etc etc etc.
.
None of these are forgiving terms. Calling someone gay in a demeaning manner is hateful, yes. But the implication is often far different. The intended reaction is often far different as well.
.
Calling someone stupid is rude, often. But that's not the same as saying or implying someone is evil.
.
I am not defending the more "right-wing." They certainly have no qualms of getting ugly. I am talking the brass tacks of the terminology-- and, in my experience, more left-wing have been more inclined to resort in terminology that, at it's core, labels someone "evil" in some way.
.
Soyboy, cuck, communist, Feminazi, beta, simp, the various slurs for gay, etc are terms I've seen more thrown from the right.
.
The right seems more inclined to make a mockery of people and hurt their feelings by implying they are lacking. The left seems more inclined to use language that likens someone to evil, and, if given traction, can destroy a person on a societal level.
Ahaha no I was saying you were using terf talking points and even further specified you might not be realizing they are terf talking points, but whatever, it's all water under the bridge and there's no point in bringing it up.
Anyway I don't think it's necessarily true that right wingers call people lacking and not evil. Remember, the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theories comes from the right. Right wingers are very eager to jump on the bandwagon of "X is a ploy to destroy the West", whether X stands for gay rights, reproductive rights or hell, just the "right" for men to wear dresses. The Harry Styles debacle still makes me laugh.
I think @roanoke put it perfectly, in a way we're both correct because we have different experiences that don't cancel each other out.
Point remains you are literally one of the people quick to draw terms like "TERF" to label people you disagree with, and then 20 posts later say we all need to be more reasonable.
.
As for the "conspiracy theory" thing: citation needed? Or are you just passing feelings off as facts?
.
But, I mean, they were right about CRT, transgender ideology, eventually the MeToo movement, BLM, and many others - so, honestly, can't say I blame them for coming up with a few more.
.
If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right
Tl;dr:
I said that a person saying they've experienced people who react poorly to dissenting opinions on one side of the political field more than another, is not, in fact, an example of someone calling people evil for disagreeing with them, and that I have also experienced that [and stating so does not inherently mean I am calling anyone evil, either].
.
This made a lot of people very eager to voice opinions about which side of the political spectrum (if any) they support, and has been widely regarded as a bad move
Point doesn't remain when it's not true, hahaha. You can't make a point out of a misrepresentation of events.
As for conspiracy theories, we could look at some big recent conspiracy theories and where they come from. From the right we have QAnon, vaccine chips, Obama birth certificate/whether he's a Muslim, pizzagate/Clintons, Sandy Hook, cultural Marxism, stolen election, Illuminati, Democrats are demons from hell... and that's all I can name off the top of my head. From the left, we have Russiagate, and maybe some lefties also engage in 9/11 Trutherism? And that's about it from what I can remember.
Do feel free to add to the list, of course. I'm willing to change my mind if you can come up with some leftie conspiracy theories, but I sure don't know of any in recent history.
Now, that is not to say lefties don't engage in conspiratorial thinking at all. Just that in my experience, they happen to be more along the lines of "this person/group has a lot of power and they're abusing it" rather than "this person is a demon who's gonna destroy civilization as we know it".
As for 'If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right' ... The point of labeling someone as an attacker on "our culture" or "our values" is to dehumanize and eliminate them. It's to create a sense of threat that we must retaliate against. So I don't think it's too different at all, in the effect it has on people at least. Saying someone's a bad person, or abusing power or whatever, usually just means they're selfish. Saying they're actively trying to destroy you and everything you stand for is a level above that.
So yeah TL;DR, since it's so requested, in my experience leftie conspiracy theories are usually just sort of like "this group is abusing their power for their own gain" or like "these businesses are working together to create an oligopoly to control the market" whereas right wing conspiracy theories tend to be more cataclysmic and civilization-ending, like "gay rights are going to be the downfall of the West" or whatever. As for citations, I am going off my own experiences, but that's what we were talking about this whole time, our experiences with being treated a certain way, so I don't think I'm in the wrong for talking about that.
You literally used the term TERF to describe opinions that disagreed with your own. It's not a misrepresentation - that's literally what happened, and you ADMITTED and even added ON to the event in your own comment. YOU should probably try and contain your own "misrepresentation" of events before you put someone's eye out with that nose of yours :P
.
Okay so vaccine microchips may be a bridge too far (currently). But vaccine passports, and the ostracization of people who aren't vaccinated IS. The shutting down of access to places of business, work, education; the ability to walk down the street; even access to phones and internet -- literally all happening. So...?
.
The Obama birth certificate - literally everyone was talking about that, and clearly you never saw a single one of the conspiracy theories about Trump I take it? There are a-many, and they often are not from the right. So...?
The right also aren't the ones that came up with the whole "Trump colluded with Russia" shtick, which covers the conspiracy both above and below.
.
There is literal proof the more recent election was tampered with - repeatedly. Whether Biden would have won anyway I have no idea, but closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and screaming doesn't mean the proof isn't there... though the left media certainly seems to have done a decent job of convincing people otherwise lol
.
"Sandyhook" isn't a conspiracy, you'll have to use more words. And then I'll ask for proof that this is right wing? Or did you just decide?
.
Cultural Marxism - BLM states loudly and repeatedly that their goal is communism and the destruction of the family unit. And they've been allowed to run rampant across America. Far from the only ones. So I'm afraid you'll have to work harder to prove there aren't attacks on democratic values than just saying "I call it conspiracy therefore it has no merit."
PizzaGate I'm unfamiliar with. The only thing I can think of might be the Epstein situation where there was literal proof that many of the higher ups in society were using terms for ordering pizza to buy and rape underage girls. And there absolutely was a conspiracy going on there (unless you believe Epstein did kill himself from behind), the only questionmark is exactly who was involved and to what extent.
.
I've seen more people on the left talk about the illuminati than the right
.
I think the issue is that you spend more time reading and auto-dismissing right wing conspiracy theories and give more merit (or choose to ignore the existence of) the theories on the left - rather than there being actual factual proof behind your initial claim that the right believes more conspiracies
"Just that in my experience, they happen to be more along the lines of this person/group has a lot of power and they're abusing it" rather than "this person is a demon who's gonna destroy civilization as we know it".
As for 'If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right' ... The point of labeling someone as an attacker on "our culture" or "our values" is to dehumanize and eliminate them"
.
.
So there is a difference between labelling someone a demon and saying they're abusing power? (and in this instance saying they're abusing power is the lesser offense), And there's also no difference between saying someone is evil and saying someone is attacking culture? (And in this instance saying someone is evil is the lesser offense)? Simultaneously?
.
How Extraordinary
A talking point isn't necessarily an opinion. One can inadvertently share a talking point without necessarily sharing the opinion, or belonging to the group. That's why I wrote what I wrote, I was making darn sure I wasn't labelling you personally anything, yet you still got offended. Also, are you really gonna bring this up every time I happen to disagree with you, when you said worse shit to me? "I now see into your worldview and I see that you're a vile and hypocritical person", "your hypocrisy knows no ends", you verbatim called me "fucking disgusting" and a "terrible person" literally just for disagreeing with you. Are you really gonna bring this one thing up every time, when you said worse shit both to me and about me behind my back? Give me a break.
But alright, let's drop this and get into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Vaccine passports – I agree, shit's authoritarian as hell. But vaccine chips ain't a thing and the theory is cuckoo.
Obama citizenship – I'm pretty sure mostly Republicans were pushing it back then. I haven't seen Democrat voters questioning his citizenship anywhere, but if you have, alright, noted.
Russia collusion – Yup, that's why I mentioned Russiagate as well. That's really the only conspiracy theory I've seen Democrats pushing, and yeah, it's absolutely stupid.
Election tampering – I ain't even gonna get into that.
Sandy Hook – the conspiracy theory goes that the shooting was faked to make people support gun control, and it was mostly pushed by Alex Jones, a prominent conservative media figure, which in turn influenced his mostly right wing audience into believing it.
Cultural Marxism – okay, that's how you see it, you perceive wokeness as a threat to democratic values. I see it as a bunch of idiot liberals saying "Yas qween trans women are women black lives matter yas", none of them has ever even read Marx or knows what Marxist theory is.
They're after all just liberals, not actually lefties. Personally, I see the personality cult of Donald Trump and the calls to rescind elections that didn't go in his favor as a threat to democratic values, more so than woke idiots.
Pizzagate – this one is basically QAnon before QAnon. That Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in some pizza place. This theory was so believed in conservative circles that some guy went to that pizza shop with the intention to kill people inside. If I remember correctly, they were able to stop him.
Illuminati – you've seen more people on the left, I've seen more people on the right talk about it. Both our experiences are valid.
As for me dismissing conspiracy theories on the right but not left – I really don't think I am. I say all conspiracy theories are bullshit including the ones pushed by Democrats like Russiagate. You'll have to prove to me that that's what I'm doing, because so far you're just going off your feelings.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you feel a certain "vibe" from someone it's alright to mention it, but I am saying now in good faith that I don't think I'm doing that and I'd like to see concrete proof of me giving any merit to left wing conspiracy theories, because I think any that exist are equally dumb as right wing ones.
So, let me explain the whole "evil person" vs "demon wanting to destroy civilization" thing. Labelling something or someone a threat to our civilization, culture, values etc. has a much bigger chance that people will retaliate against it/them. Saying "Jeff Bezos is an asshole who treats his employees like shit" is calling him evil but even if you sympathize with that you don't really feel the need to stop him personally, maybe just tweak the system that allows him to do that, by improving employee protection laws for instance. But saying "BLM is a threat to the democratic process of this country" will make people retaliatiate, as they feel threatened.
This is a phenomenon called 'Securitization'. A politician/media figure will, through talking about it, make something be perceived as a threat by the populace. For instance, the flow of refugees is a threat to national security because they will come and do crimes etc. The thing in question wasn't originally perceived as a threat to the security of the country, but someone made it so through talking about it. Hence, if we label a specific person evil, bad, selfish, there is a lesser sense of "let's do something about it" because it's not a security threat. But if you claim that a movement or refugees or whatever are a threat to the security or even existence of the nation, people become scared, and when they're scared they're more likely to vote for legislation and people that will make the threat go away, even if the person they're voting for is an authoritarian asshole. This is why I see the labelling of something or someone a threat as worse than labelling someone a bad person.
Also, a small nitpick (please don't take offense at this, I don't mean it as an attack on your person, just pointing out the conversational dynamic) – quoting what I wrote and only adding "How extraordinary" or "I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right" adds absolutely nothing of value to the conversation. Metaphorically rolling your eyes at a point I made and expecting I'll understand your counterargument from it doesn't work. Maybe it works with other people, but I like to use words to communicate, not "reading between the lines" and stuff like that. I assume it means disagreement, but can't tell anything beyond that. If you state your disagreement, it'd be nice to also say why you think what I say is wrong, because then the conversation will devolve into nonsense.
Alright that's all, I hope I made everything clear and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation.
And here's some free chicken. Pick a point or a couple of points. Nobody in the world is going to want to read your dissertation, particularly when the first couple of sentences open up with blatant lies, or perhaps amateurish gaslighting.
I do indeed expect civility after voicing my disagreements with you, and it's strange that you find it so outlandish. Isn't being bullied off a platform for having a different opinion the prime right wing victim narrative? Y'know, woe is me, I'm being targeted by the Twitter mob for having different opinions, all that? And now you're saying you will under no circumstances treat me in a civil way because I've voiced disagreement with you in the past. Curious. Perhaps for once you could react to points instead of trying to discredit the person making them?
Oh I'm pretty much the opposite of a snob, I just write long comments because I want to be clear and avoid misunderstandings. Which unfortunately even with my long comments I can't seem to be able to pull off as people misunderstand and then even lie about situations.
Though to be fair, although I despise snobbery, it's probably preferable to telling someone "I refuse to treat you in a civil way because you disagreed with me back there". Snobbery sucks but it's better than shit flinging.
Thank you for the feedback though, I didn't realize getting so in-depth into a topic would seem so unbearably snobbish.
Here's an example, straight from your earlier response, paraphrased for clarity
"I'M NOT CALLING YOU A TERF I'M JUST SAYING YOU SOUND LIKE A TERF"
Keep lying. Keep gaslighting. Write another dissertation. We all know you for the disingenuous troll you are.
That's not at all what that means and you know it. Anyway I'll just be chilling, waiting for someone who's willing to discuss facts instead of spreading gossip.
"Are you really going to bring this up everytime I disagree with you" - no. This is literally the first time I've mentioned it in our discourse I'm fairly certain, (maybe second?) and I did so because it was relevant. There you go misrepresenting again.
.
And I'm sorry - are you saying that comparing someone to a TERF makes them a pleasant person in any way? Even if you ARE, once again, you literally compared me disagreeing with you with me wishing you were dead lol
.
And unless you really ARE aiming for the eyes with that nose of yours, let's not pretend you haven't said nasty shit about me haha. Just because I don't keep an on-going record to quote verbatim
.
You seem to have gotten confused. I don't remember the TERF and the death incident because I care what you think of me or because I was offended. I remember it because they are, to me, an expression of extremism - and, in the case of TERF, a continued shining example of how hypocritical you are
You pretend to be above the fray and civilized, but you aren't. You simply lie about it, and gaslight. Your all-time favourite word is "sTrAwMen"and you use it with such frequency, I can only imagine you must sit there hyperventilating at the mere possibility you might get to whip it out.
.
And yes, I do think the way you conduct yourself is vile and disgusting, not because you disagree with me, but for all the reasons I mentioned above, and more. And I do think many of your opinions are as well. Now what?
.
Am I required to hold your hand? I treated you with respect and civility at the start, and treated you with the same level of "civility" you show myself and others as we progressed. Outside the discourse of these conversations I leave you be. So what, exactly, do you want from me?
.
Or are you just trying to play victim? You've said very similar shit about me. You just pretend to candycoat it.
Actually you brought it up twice already, hence why I was so confused as to why you're doing it again.
The wishing death thing was a joke that made sense in that particular context, at least to me. Maybe my sense of humor isn't for everyone, which is entirely fair. Maybe it was even in bad taste. But I did clarifiy that it was meant as a joke back then, and subsequently every time you brought it up again, which is like the third time now.
I've never said anything about you, only to you. I hate gossip and would never do that over a disagreement. Then I caught you gossiping about me on multiple posts. And yet I'm the hypocrite.
I haven't called anyone out on using strawmen in a long time. Exactly zero times in this convo, for instance.
Obama citizenship - dunno enough about it. As far as I've heard there's a big questionmark over his citizenship after the only person who could verify it died? Not sure that's an unreasonable thing to want an answer to, he's only the president of the United states after all - and literally every president is required to prove they were a citizen
.
Vaccine Chips - "ain't a thing." Yet. Operative word there. I'm not sure why it's such a wild leap in your eyes when they are talking about going door to door kidnapping people, implementing vaccine passports, and there are countries currently fully willing to cut people off from their phones at present to force compliance. But if that's how you feel about it, that's how you feel about it
.
Election Tampering - you brought it up
Here's the thing. I don't look at usernames when I reply because I don't care who wrote it, if it's a topic I find interesting, I'll reply to the thread because I like debates. The only thing I was hoping for here is that you'd actually reply to what my comment said instead of immediately attacking my person. I've tried this on multiple threads already and so far you always defaulted to "well you said my opinion was terfy this one time, you're a vile hypocrite" and the convo ended there. Possibly with famous chiming in to show support to you, which I'm not gonna lie, is cute in a way. All I want is for people to address the topic at hand instead of endlessly gossiping over some months old disagreement. Is it really that much to ask?
"The only theory I've seen democrats push" - I want you to think that sentence over carefully. Because If you truly have only seen Russiagate as the only conspiracy pushed by democrats - during the TRUMP administration - either you have been very selective in your viewing, or I'm terrified to find what you actually define as "not a conspiracy."
.
PizzaGate - sounds pretty wild. Does make me wonder why the Clintons always seem to get their names attached to the rape of minors, though.
.
-"Cultural Marxism" - so your issue with this conspiracy isn't whether or not it's HAPPENING, but that they're using the wrong terminology?
.
Democracy is literally in part the right to question the rule of government. That's how it works. If you CAN'T do that, you don't have democracy.
@famousone From what I could dig up, it was started back when he ran for Senate in '04 by his Republican opponent Andy Martin. Some Clinton supporters did circulate is as well though, so yeah, it wasn't just Republicans, but mostly.
If the election was so free and fair, I still don't see why they fought so hard to stop a do-over. Canada's had to do it iirc. Did it during the Harper administration. End result: Harper ended up elected anyway, with a stronger claim. But that's for the people so confident in their election results to explain away I suppose
.
Yes, securitization worked quite well at making sure everyone knew the Trump rallies would be the end of civilization as we know it - and the single greatest spreader of covid [while BLM literally beat people and killed people and nary a covid case to be found].
.
Except, labelling someone a "Nazi" and a "terf" and all these other fun slurs people like to sling around is, by that standard, also labelling them a threat/attack. It is also securitization. Trans exclusionary radical feminist is not only saying "you're a bad person and an extremist" but also "this person is attacking us and is a threat." So now you have the double-whammy.
@xvarnah Oh no, I'm willing to accept that just Russiagate itself had many parts. And some Democrats couldn't shut up about it, or Trump in general for that matter. I wouldn't call their whining conspiracy theories though, but if you can show me an example of them engaging in some more conspiratorial shit than Russiagate, that'd be awesome because I can't recall any.
I think it's just the "rich and powerful" part, but there might be something to it.
No no, I didn't mean it as in wrong terminology, just that I think the people who participate in this woke stuff don't and won't actually make an impact. All they can realistically achieve is performative stuff like making movie studios cast more black people and women, not systemic change.
I agree, dissent is a vital part of democracy.
They're compromising schools and hiring practices. They're putting people out of work for looking and speaking wrong. They got away with burning down entire cities and staging *actual* insurrections against the states and federal government.
As for conspiracy theories, you follow up on the Russian bounties? Kavanaugh? FISA violations? On and on, still in the news cycle is new shit and the same debunked trash.
What do you mean by do-over? Like just counting the votes again or redoing the whole election and making people vote again? Because the former sounds great and I'd be for it. The latter seems kinda arbitrary and imo would allow space for more tampering, rather than eliminating it.
Yes, the logic of Trump rallies being super spreader events but not BLM "protests" is bullshit, definitely agree on that.
The point of securitization is that it's done by a politician or known media figure. However, that's actually a good question, whether big Twitter trends like "cancelling" someone could potentially add to securitization. Because it's usually understood as traditional media, but surely social media definitely has an impact too. Good point!
Compromising schools in what way?
I definitely agree that firing someone over an opinion is wrong.
I just still don't understand what you mean by "they". The people burning down cities are definitely not the same people in charge of the education or hiring systems. What links them? Just that they're liberals?
"The only thing I was hoping for here is that you'd actually reply to what my comment said instead of immediately attacking my person. I've tried this on multiple threads already and so far you always defaulted to "well you said my opinion was terfy this one time, you're a vile hypocrite" and the convo ended there."
.
Literal pages of me replying. The terf part was one facet of it. But yes, remember how on every thread ever I've brought that up? Even though we've only spoken maybe 4 times since then, and one of them was a dragon age chain where no one was talking about anything to do with this? I'm a bitch like that
.
Or maybe you're misrepresenting. Again. Lol.
And I really appreciate that you're replying now. The previous convos did pretty much end on that mean note about how I'm just about the worst person alive (note: comedic exaggeration) so this is a breath of fresh air that we're actually talking substance now.
The people burning down cities are backed by the state authorities, if you'll recall. And actual tenured professors participated in the rioting and assaults. They are the same.
Recounts are worth shit. I would wholly back a do-over, but how about an honest to God audit? And maybe a gag-order on the media and social media, as they've finally outed themselves as organs of the state in Biden's latest fascistic media control and thought-policing methodology.
Backed by state authorities? I really don't recall. I recall everyone condemning it except for some absolutely shit media outlet like CNN. Which, yeah, no surprises there. CNN, MSNBC, FOX News... Cesspool next to cesspool next to cesspool. I recommend you look up Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, really good book on the topic.
The same goes for social media. But I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without being extremely authoritarian.
It's shit under Biden and it was shit under Trump, who tried to expand libel laws so he could control the media even more. And obviously it was shit under Obama too. As a supporter of free speech, I'm really not a fan of either of these men's approaches.
Democrat congress critters, governors, mayors, reps, and such across the nation backed the rioters openly. Actively lying about the events, actually bailing out violent felons, refusing to enforce the law where it was their duty to. On and on it goes.
There is nothing Trump did that edges anywhere near what Biden is doing. One way gives people recourse when the media knowingly manufactures lies, and the other wants a state-run gestapo to stomp out anyone who opposes the party-run media that has again been caught manufacturing and peddling lies. For the express purpose of political gain universally for the Democrats.
No, not even for the Democrats. For certain democrats. The right ones, not "Traitors and spies" like Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Manchin. Who's only crimes are being America first and refusing to destroy American rule of law.
Biden isn't actually realistically doing anything though. Not for the lack of trying, he's just not very capable. There was a push from his administration to make social media more liable for the spread of misinformation, but that's about it so far and afaik it didn't go anywhere yet. Just a few moments ago you talked about shutting up social media altogether (or just for election season if I understood correctly?) so I'm curious if you'd agree with Biden's move to make them more factually accountable?
But anyway it seems strange to blame him directly, what congresspeople or state representatives did, as dumb as it was, isn't really under his control.
I'm also skeptical about your comparison of what Trump and Biden are doing, since the principle seems very much the same to me. Both tried to get a tighter control of the media, which sets a very bad precedent no matter who's holding the leash.
Trump pushed for social media to either be a publisher or a platform, and bound by the rules of either. Biden is gunning for blacklists to make Stalin blush.
And I'm not holding him alone responsible. But the entire party. I've been very clear on that. If he doesn't support them, he can reign them in. But his Administration only pushes more and more authoritarian. He doesn't care about factually accountable, it's all about narrative control. Free or fair narrative (Trump), or party and government controlled narrative (Biden).
That he's even trying already makes him worse than Trump at his own most authoritarian, which I will not ignore his own lapses towards. But his attitude towards the media ain't it.
"And I really appreciate that you're replying now. The previous convos did pretty much end on that mean note about how I'm just about the worst person alive (note: comedic exaggeration) so this is a breath of fresh air that we're actually talking substance now..
.
I literally always talk substance to begin with, something you well know. I'd encourage you to point out all the past conversations I've had on this website - with or without you- where my initial take is to attack someone without provocation.
.
That said, thank you for demonstrating so thoroughly everything I have said so far.
.
In one paragraph you re-established for roughly the fifth time in a row that there is not a genuine bone in your body.
.
In that same paragraph you demonstrated that you only pretend to be civil with the implication that I have never offered any substantial input to a conversation we've had. You also lied - again - but that's besides the point.
And this after claiming victimhood and saying I'm the one constantly on the attack, constantly insulting you and attacking your character, constantly saying mean things.
.
No.
.
This is why I say "that sounds exactly right." This is why I don't bother engaging with you with the same civility I used to. This is why I say you're a hypocrite.
.
Because THIS is what YOU do when people attempt to engage in discourse with you.
.
You want to have conversations of substance? Be a fucking person of substance - and make it a worthwhile substance. Not this.
.
And if you're going to persist WITH this, then for the love of GOD don't whine about it when people treat you with a different brand of the same lack of respect
@memesgobrr I honestly don't even know at this point. I disagreed with them a couple of times to which their reaction was to call me a liar, hypocrite, not genuine, disgusting, and more. If I'm fed up with the false accusations and finally decide to match their level of meanness, they mention it on other posts to shit talk me. If I try to be overtly nice and offer an olive branch, it's interpreted as some big manipulative plot.
I guess I can sleep well with the knowledge that if I ever lose the roof over my head, I can move into their heads rent-free.
Basically I pointed out ewqua was being a bit hypocritical on this post, and she's been playing the victim ever since, claiming this has been an on-going, never-ending assault on her character, and it's really quite mean of me to point out her hypocrisy even when it's relevant to the conversation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ewqua - I'm sorry your hold on reality is so extremely fragile.
.
I didn't call you disgusting on this post until YOU brought it up. At which point I said your behavior and many of the opinions you hold are deplorable. That's not the same as calling YOU disgusting - just saying you're making the arguments that a lot of disgusting people have made in the past. Different... remember?
.
I wouldn't call you a hypocrite if you would stop engaging in so much hypocrisy. It's not really complicated.
.
As for your so called attempt at peace and kindness [I guess this is a miss America pageant now].... the "olive branch" was rotten, covered in bullshit, and infested with maggots.
.
Quit playing the martyr lol - you may be a liar, but you're not that good an actress.
"I can move into their heads rent-free." - from the person who apparently has taken anything I have ever said to them so much to heart, this DOES seem to fall a LITTLE flat. Oh hey we've come full circle!
.
"If I try to be overtly nice and offer an olive branch, it's interpreted as some big manipulative plot" - guess we can add this to the list of leftist conspiracy theories :P
Oh you did call me personally disgusting on another post, that's what I was referring to. That gotcha is really bad.
Looks like I don't even have to move in, I'm already there.
jesus christ guys this post has over a hundred fucking comments relax you're both strangers on the internet arguing about an older argument where supposedly there were a few insults hurled, GET SOME THICKER SKIN ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL like bro just ignore each other or something but at the end of the day you're, like i said earlier, just 2 stranger on the internet arguing about something pointless and irrelevant
Oh I definitely agree. I tried to start fresh multiple goddamn times in this convo and urged the comedy duo to drop it and focus on the topic of the post, but I couldn't go without correcting the, uh, let's say incorrect stuff that was told about me. Maybe that is thin skinned of me I just didn't want this BS to stay uncorrected.
Honestly though, I'm tired of it too. So I'm pulling out no matter what else they're gonna make up.
Ewqua I LITERALLY said I didn't call you disgusting in any way, shape, or form on THIS post until YOU brought it up lol. I never claimed I didn't say I find your tactics vile on another post
.
If you're going to attempt a "gatcha" at least invest SOME energy into literacy first lol
.
Not to mention you laid the claim that everything was water under the bridge anyway
@memesgobrrr it has been more of a drag out than a drop down, but that tends to happen. Although to be fair, I wasn't arguing about an older argument. I was arguing about PRESENT tactics that reference older arguments :P
.
I'm surprised you've read this much tbh
I am also here
.
Then, whether that's effective or not, they'll target your family.
.
They'll make threats and possibly show up where you live/dox your address online. Send shit
.
They keep this behavior up until they make sure you have nothing left. And then they'll act surprised when you kill yourself, and claim they were the real victims all along
They either want a slow, painful death
Or they just commit mass shootings
.
The guy in the "exhibit" didn't say anyone on the left was evil etc. He said they have a greater propensity to label people who disagree with them as evil. And in his experience that may well be correct.
.
Idk about other people. People on the right have typically labelled me either a communist or stupid.
.
People on the Left, meanwhile... well, they've labelled me... let's see... Nazi, gender-traitor, Race-traitor, racist, privileged, feminist, anti-feminist, TERF, colonizer, Trump-supporter, white supremacist, pedophile, transphobe, homophobe, a victim of internalized misogyny, a misogynist, and a dozen other titles (though oddly never a partridge in a pear tree).
.
.
Belated apologies to all the sincerely confused who take me pointing out my own experience as the same as calling people evil for their political opinions lol
Years ago, I've joined the platform Minds. It was a sort of big thing back then in internet circles, advertised as THE true free speech platform, and that's legitimately what its creators stood for (I've communicated with one of them, great dude). The problem is, it very soon became flooded with very far right authoritarian people who were either banned or "mobbed" off other platforms. And they made Minds their echo chamber. When I made a post that basically only said "there's a lot of very far right people, I hope there will be nice open discourse and it won't become an echo chamber", I've been called so many things I can't even list them all in like five comments. Commie, government spy, bot, plus a ton of misogynistic and homophobic (I'm not even gay but apparently it's an insult in these circles) shit that's too vile to repeat. Never have I been called anything even close to that level of vileness by a leftie that I disagreed with.
Also I'd like to point out it's in my experience not quite correct to label this a generational or recent issue. Sure, as I said social media probably exacerbates it, but a lot of people who I've met that are my grandmother's age (including my grandmother haha) are exactly like that. They take disagreement as a personal attack and will start attacking your person very early in the discussion, instead of your points. But idk maybe this is just a central European thing.
TL;DR let's just all have discourse and not be dicks to each other eh?
.
.
Though, again, I never said there weren't reasonable people on both sides. That's nowhere near what I said. I said in my experience people on the left have been far quicker to resort to literally labelling someone they disagree with an actual villain (or slur on par with that), and people on the right have been more inclined to just label me stupid.
.
And the point there being that saying you experience more hate on one side than the other is not the same as saying "everyone on that side is evil," like the big brain at the bottom of the post implies. They're not the same thing, so as an example it doesn't work.
Which of us is right? Quite simply, we both are. Lefties are more likely to slander the righties and righties are more likely to slander the lefties. I don’t hear the lefties talking trash as often as I hear the righties because they aren’t saying it to me. At least that’s what I assume because I have no grounds to invalidate the experience of anyone else.
The best we can do for each other is try to understand one another, try to understand where the other comes from and not perpetuate the behavior we are insulted/hurt/angered/annoyed by.
.
In my experience right leaners that consider me left-leaning have been no less inclined to insult me -- but the language they use has been far less "something wicked this way comes." Nazi, for example. There is almost no way to interpret Nazi that doesn't equate back to a supremacist that indoctrinated children and commited genocide against others. That's what that word MEANS for all intents and purposes. Evil.
.
Racist. TERF. Sexist. Phobic. Pedophile. Rape-enablist. Gender Traitor. Race Traitor. Etc etc etc.
.
None of these are forgiving terms. Calling someone gay in a demeaning manner is hateful, yes. But the implication is often far different. The intended reaction is often far different as well.
.
Calling someone stupid is rude, often. But that's not the same as saying or implying someone is evil.
.
.
Soyboy, cuck, communist, Feminazi, beta, simp, the various slurs for gay, etc are terms I've seen more thrown from the right.
.
The right seems more inclined to make a mockery of people and hurt their feelings by implying they are lacking. The left seems more inclined to use language that likens someone to evil, and, if given traction, can destroy a person on a societal level.
Anyway I don't think it's necessarily true that right wingers call people lacking and not evil. Remember, the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theories comes from the right. Right wingers are very eager to jump on the bandwagon of "X is a ploy to destroy the West", whether X stands for gay rights, reproductive rights or hell, just the "right" for men to wear dresses. The Harry Styles debacle still makes me laugh.
I think @roanoke put it perfectly, in a way we're both correct because we have different experiences that don't cancel each other out.
.
As for the "conspiracy theory" thing: citation needed? Or are you just passing feelings off as facts?
.
But, I mean, they were right about CRT, transgender ideology, eventually the MeToo movement, BLM, and many others - so, honestly, can't say I blame them for coming up with a few more.
.
If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right
I said that a person saying they've experienced people who react poorly to dissenting opinions on one side of the political field more than another, is not, in fact, an example of someone calling people evil for disagreeing with them, and that I have also experienced that [and stating so does not inherently mean I am calling anyone evil, either].
.
This made a lot of people very eager to voice opinions about which side of the political spectrum (if any) they support, and has been widely regarded as a bad move
As for conspiracy theories, we could look at some big recent conspiracy theories and where they come from. From the right we have QAnon, vaccine chips, Obama birth certificate/whether he's a Muslim, pizzagate/Clintons, Sandy Hook, cultural Marxism, stolen election, Illuminati, Democrats are demons from hell... and that's all I can name off the top of my head. From the left, we have Russiagate, and maybe some lefties also engage in 9/11 Trutherism? And that's about it from what I can remember.
Do feel free to add to the list, of course. I'm willing to change my mind if you can come up with some leftie conspiracy theories, but I sure don't know of any in recent history.
As for 'If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right' ... The point of labeling someone as an attacker on "our culture" or "our values" is to dehumanize and eliminate them. It's to create a sense of threat that we must retaliate against. So I don't think it's too different at all, in the effect it has on people at least. Saying someone's a bad person, or abusing power or whatever, usually just means they're selfish. Saying they're actively trying to destroy you and everything you stand for is a level above that.
.
Okay so vaccine microchips may be a bridge too far (currently). But vaccine passports, and the ostracization of people who aren't vaccinated IS. The shutting down of access to places of business, work, education; the ability to walk down the street; even access to phones and internet -- literally all happening. So...?
.
The Obama birth certificate - literally everyone was talking about that, and clearly you never saw a single one of the conspiracy theories about Trump I take it? There are a-many, and they often are not from the right. So...?
.
There is literal proof the more recent election was tampered with - repeatedly. Whether Biden would have won anyway I have no idea, but closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and screaming doesn't mean the proof isn't there... though the left media certainly seems to have done a decent job of convincing people otherwise lol
.
"Sandyhook" isn't a conspiracy, you'll have to use more words. And then I'll ask for proof that this is right wing? Or did you just decide?
.
Cultural Marxism - BLM states loudly and repeatedly that their goal is communism and the destruction of the family unit. And they've been allowed to run rampant across America. Far from the only ones. So I'm afraid you'll have to work harder to prove there aren't attacks on democratic values than just saying "I call it conspiracy therefore it has no merit."
.
I've seen more people on the left talk about the illuminati than the right
.
I think the issue is that you spend more time reading and auto-dismissing right wing conspiracy theories and give more merit (or choose to ignore the existence of) the theories on the left - rather than there being actual factual proof behind your initial claim that the right believes more conspiracies
As for 'If you think saying "this is an attack on our culture" is the same as "that person is a radical, racist, extremist, who would commit genocide if given the chance" I'm not sure what to tell you other than that sounds about right' ... The point of labeling someone as an attacker on "our culture" or "our values" is to dehumanize and eliminate them"
.
.
So there is a difference between labelling someone a demon and saying they're abusing power? (and in this instance saying they're abusing power is the lesser offense), And there's also no difference between saying someone is evil and saying someone is attacking culture? (And in this instance saying someone is evil is the lesser offense)? Simultaneously?
.
How Extraordinary
But alright, let's drop this and get into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Vaccine passports – I agree, shit's authoritarian as hell. But vaccine chips ain't a thing and the theory is cuckoo.
Russia collusion – Yup, that's why I mentioned Russiagate as well. That's really the only conspiracy theory I've seen Democrats pushing, and yeah, it's absolutely stupid.
Election tampering – I ain't even gonna get into that.
Sandy Hook – the conspiracy theory goes that the shooting was faked to make people support gun control, and it was mostly pushed by Alex Jones, a prominent conservative media figure, which in turn influenced his mostly right wing audience into believing it.
Cultural Marxism – okay, that's how you see it, you perceive wokeness as a threat to democratic values. I see it as a bunch of idiot liberals saying "Yas qween trans women are women black lives matter yas", none of them has ever even read Marx or knows what Marxist theory is.
Pizzagate – this one is basically QAnon before QAnon. That Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring in some pizza place. This theory was so believed in conservative circles that some guy went to that pizza shop with the intention to kill people inside. If I remember correctly, they were able to stop him.
Illuminati – you've seen more people on the left, I've seen more people on the right talk about it. Both our experiences are valid.
As for me dismissing conspiracy theories on the right but not left – I really don't think I am. I say all conspiracy theories are bullshit including the ones pushed by Democrats like Russiagate. You'll have to prove to me that that's what I'm doing, because so far you're just going off your feelings.
So, let me explain the whole "evil person" vs "demon wanting to destroy civilization" thing. Labelling something or someone a threat to our civilization, culture, values etc. has a much bigger chance that people will retaliate against it/them. Saying "Jeff Bezos is an asshole who treats his employees like shit" is calling him evil but even if you sympathize with that you don't really feel the need to stop him personally, maybe just tweak the system that allows him to do that, by improving employee protection laws for instance. But saying "BLM is a threat to the democratic process of this country" will make people retaliatiate, as they feel threatened.
Alright that's all, I hope I made everything clear and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation.
Could you address my points? Or, y'know, at the very least read the thread?
Though to be fair, although I despise snobbery, it's probably preferable to telling someone "I refuse to treat you in a civil way because you disagreed with me back there". Snobbery sucks but it's better than shit flinging.
Thank you for the feedback though, I didn't realize getting so in-depth into a topic would seem so unbearably snobbish.
"I'M NOT CALLING YOU A TERF I'M JUST SAYING YOU SOUND LIKE A TERF"
Keep lying. Keep gaslighting. Write another dissertation. We all know you for the disingenuous troll you are.
.
And I'm sorry - are you saying that comparing someone to a TERF makes them a pleasant person in any way? Even if you ARE, once again, you literally compared me disagreeing with you with me wishing you were dead lol
.
And unless you really ARE aiming for the eyes with that nose of yours, let's not pretend you haven't said nasty shit about me haha. Just because I don't keep an on-going record to quote verbatim
.
You seem to have gotten confused. I don't remember the TERF and the death incident because I care what you think of me or because I was offended. I remember it because they are, to me, an expression of extremism - and, in the case of TERF, a continued shining example of how hypocritical you are
.
And yes, I do think the way you conduct yourself is vile and disgusting, not because you disagree with me, but for all the reasons I mentioned above, and more. And I do think many of your opinions are as well. Now what?
.
Am I required to hold your hand? I treated you with respect and civility at the start, and treated you with the same level of "civility" you show myself and others as we progressed. Outside the discourse of these conversations I leave you be. So what, exactly, do you want from me?
.
Or are you just trying to play victim? You've said very similar shit about me. You just pretend to candycoat it.
The wishing death thing was a joke that made sense in that particular context, at least to me. Maybe my sense of humor isn't for everyone, which is entirely fair. Maybe it was even in bad taste. But I did clarifiy that it was meant as a joke back then, and subsequently every time you brought it up again, which is like the third time now.
I've never said anything about you, only to you. I hate gossip and would never do that over a disagreement. Then I caught you gossiping about me on multiple posts. And yet I'm the hypocrite.
I haven't called anyone out on using strawmen in a long time. Exactly zero times in this convo, for instance.
.
Vaccine Chips - "ain't a thing." Yet. Operative word there. I'm not sure why it's such a wild leap in your eyes when they are talking about going door to door kidnapping people, implementing vaccine passports, and there are countries currently fully willing to cut people off from their phones at present to force compliance. But if that's how you feel about it, that's how you feel about it
.
Election Tampering - you brought it up
.
PizzaGate - sounds pretty wild. Does make me wonder why the Clintons always seem to get their names attached to the rape of minors, though.
.
-"Cultural Marxism" - so your issue with this conspiracy isn't whether or not it's HAPPENING, but that they're using the wrong terminology?
.
Democracy is literally in part the right to question the rule of government. That's how it works. If you CAN'T do that, you don't have democracy.
.
Yes, securitization worked quite well at making sure everyone knew the Trump rallies would be the end of civilization as we know it - and the single greatest spreader of covid [while BLM literally beat people and killed people and nary a covid case to be found].
.
Except, labelling someone a "Nazi" and a "terf" and all these other fun slurs people like to sling around is, by that standard, also labelling them a threat/attack. It is also securitization. Trans exclusionary radical feminist is not only saying "you're a bad person and an extremist" but also "this person is attacking us and is a threat." So now you have the double-whammy.
I think it's just the "rich and powerful" part, but there might be something to it.
No no, I didn't mean it as in wrong terminology, just that I think the people who participate in this woke stuff don't and won't actually make an impact. All they can realistically achieve is performative stuff like making movie studios cast more black people and women, not systemic change.
I agree, dissent is a vital part of democracy.
As for conspiracy theories, you follow up on the Russian bounties? Kavanaugh? FISA violations? On and on, still in the news cycle is new shit and the same debunked trash.
Yes, the logic of Trump rallies being super spreader events but not BLM "protests" is bullshit, definitely agree on that.
The point of securitization is that it's done by a politician or known media figure. However, that's actually a good question, whether big Twitter trends like "cancelling" someone could potentially add to securitization. Because it's usually understood as traditional media, but surely social media definitely has an impact too. Good point!
I definitely agree that firing someone over an opinion is wrong.
I just still don't understand what you mean by "they". The people burning down cities are definitely not the same people in charge of the education or hiring systems. What links them? Just that they're liberals?
.
Literal pages of me replying. The terf part was one facet of it. But yes, remember how on every thread ever I've brought that up? Even though we've only spoken maybe 4 times since then, and one of them was a dragon age chain where no one was talking about anything to do with this? I'm a bitch like that
.
Or maybe you're misrepresenting. Again. Lol.
Recounts are worth shit. I would wholly back a do-over, but how about an honest to God audit? And maybe a gag-order on the media and social media, as they've finally outed themselves as organs of the state in Biden's latest fascistic media control and thought-policing methodology.
The same goes for social media. But I'm not sure how to resolve this issue without being extremely authoritarian.
It's shit under Biden and it was shit under Trump, who tried to expand libel laws so he could control the media even more. And obviously it was shit under Obama too. As a supporter of free speech, I'm really not a fan of either of these men's approaches.
There is nothing Trump did that edges anywhere near what Biden is doing. One way gives people recourse when the media knowingly manufactures lies, and the other wants a state-run gestapo to stomp out anyone who opposes the party-run media that has again been caught manufacturing and peddling lies. For the express purpose of political gain universally for the Democrats.
But anyway it seems strange to blame him directly, what congresspeople or state representatives did, as dumb as it was, isn't really under his control.
I'm also skeptical about your comparison of what Trump and Biden are doing, since the principle seems very much the same to me. Both tried to get a tighter control of the media, which sets a very bad precedent no matter who's holding the leash.
And I'm not holding him alone responsible. But the entire party. I've been very clear on that. If he doesn't support them, he can reign them in. But his Administration only pushes more and more authoritarian. He doesn't care about factually accountable, it's all about narrative control. Free or fair narrative (Trump), or party and government controlled narrative (Biden).
That he's even trying already makes him worse than Trump at his own most authoritarian, which I will not ignore his own lapses towards. But his attitude towards the media ain't it.
.
I literally always talk substance to begin with, something you well know. I'd encourage you to point out all the past conversations I've had on this website - with or without you- where my initial take is to attack someone without provocation.
.
That said, thank you for demonstrating so thoroughly everything I have said so far.
.
In one paragraph you re-established for roughly the fifth time in a row that there is not a genuine bone in your body.
.
In that same paragraph you demonstrated that you only pretend to be civil with the implication that I have never offered any substantial input to a conversation we've had. You also lied - again - but that's besides the point.
.
No.
.
This is why I say "that sounds exactly right." This is why I don't bother engaging with you with the same civility I used to. This is why I say you're a hypocrite.
.
Because THIS is what YOU do when people attempt to engage in discourse with you.
.
You want to have conversations of substance? Be a fucking person of substance - and make it a worthwhile substance. Not this.
.
And if you're going to persist WITH this, then for the love of GOD don't whine about it when people treat you with a different brand of the same lack of respect
I guess I can sleep well with the knowledge that if I ever lose the roof over my head, I can move into their heads rent-free.
.
I didn't call you disgusting on this post until YOU brought it up. At which point I said your behavior and many of the opinions you hold are deplorable. That's not the same as calling YOU disgusting - just saying you're making the arguments that a lot of disgusting people have made in the past. Different... remember?
.
I wouldn't call you a hypocrite if you would stop engaging in so much hypocrisy. It's not really complicated.
.
As for your so called attempt at peace and kindness [I guess this is a miss America pageant now].... the "olive branch" was rotten, covered in bullshit, and infested with maggots.
.
Quit playing the martyr lol - you may be a liar, but you're not that good an actress.
.
"If I try to be overtly nice and offer an olive branch, it's interpreted as some big manipulative plot" - guess we can add this to the list of leftist conspiracy theories :P
Looks like I don't even have to move in, I'm already there.
Honestly though, I'm tired of it too. So I'm pulling out no matter what else they're gonna make up.
.
If you're going to attempt a "gatcha" at least invest SOME energy into literacy first lol
.
Not to mention you laid the claim that everything was water under the bridge anyway
.
I'm surprised you've read this much tbh
why would you do this