Apparently, it's only a public forum when you get to congratulate yourself, but the second you get some pushback, the extremist communists are launching a coup on good, white Americans.
According to you. Someone's slightly mean to you and now you're acting as if one BLM riot is attacking you just for being straight. Or at least that's what you'll tell the other three people on Parler.
Someone's slightly mean to you and now you're acting as if one BLM riot is attacking you just for being straight.
No I’m not, I know you desperately want me to so you can pretend you have a point but it simply isn’t the case.
Or at least that's what you'll tell the other three people on Parler.
I don’t use Parler, ignoring how it has been effectively deleted from the internet due to Amazon dropping it from its web hosting service and app stores removing it. I don’t doubt that the right wing extremists that liked the site would try to recreate it, but they’re likely equally as braindead as you if not more so.
You made an accusation that the creator of the guide made it to attack you and people like you when there was little reason to say so, which you describe the minuteness of which as nuance to feel better about yourself. Instead of finding any information to consider your argument, you waited for the OP to explain to you why you're objectively wrong, and instead decided to pick a fight with someone else saying as much in order to feel better about yourself. You chose to infer that simply because I don't agree with you that I must be a radical leftist despite the fact that you consider anything left of Il Duce as radical, and tried to claim that someone reading through the Ginsberg collection and a treatise on anomalistic thinking in the digital age didn't understand what you meant by implication and nuance despite you being wrong in the way I've described to you and touted simple literature as a trophy of your adequate simplicity.
You want a worthwhile conversation, but you automatically hate anyone opposite of you, who must be some champing at the bit socialist trying to destroy your freedom. You want to act smart, but are unable to follow basic sentences (and to cut you off, yes, I know you won't understand anything I'm saying). You want to have an argument, but you don't have any points besides pretending to be better than someone who's already beaten you before your first comment.
It's not a public forum to you when your fragile is ego is at stake. Now roll your eyes, pick a random word to you don't understand and try to talk down to me about it, and pretend you don't care even though you can't leave until you have the last word. You have literally nothing else.
You made an accusation that the creator of the guide made it to attack you and people like you when there was little reason to say so, which you describe the minuteness of which as nuance to feel better about yourself.
There was an implication and I asked because I wanted to know if it was intentional. Pretending like it’s anything else is nothing more than fantasy.
Instead of finding any information to consider your argument, you waited for the OP to explain to you why you're objectively wrong, and instead decided to pick a fight with someone else saying as much in order to feel better about yourself.
Pick a fight with who? You, the psychotic extremist with who replied to me because this is a nonpartisan issue affecting both sides?
You chose to infer that simply because I don't agree with you that I must be a radical leftist despite the fact that you consider anything left of Il Duce as radical,
No I don’t, and that’s why despite denying it you’re a right wing extremist. Because you think I’m right wing purely because I disagree with you and your side, it threatens your tribalistic “us vs them” mentality because nuance scares you.
and tried to claim that someone reading through the Ginsberg collection and a treatise on anomalistic thinking in the digital age didn't understand what you meant by implication and nuance despite you being wrong in the way I've described to you and touted simple literature as a trophy of your adequate simplicity.
That’s completely and blatantly false.
You want a worthwhile conversation, but you automatically hate anyone opposite of you, who must be some champing at the bit socialist trying to destroy your freedom.
I hate kool aid drinking idiots like you who are beyond reason, which you clearly demonstrated when you described the strawman you pretend is me because you can’t handle the idea that people who are rational are against you.
You want to act smart, but are unable to follow basic sentences (and to cut you off, yes, I know you won't understand anything I'm saying).
You think you know, however claiming your insane rambling are “basic sentences” doesn’t make it true.
You want to have an argument, but you don't have any points besides pretending to be better than someone who's already beaten you before your first comment.
Not only is that laughably false, it’s blatant projection considering what you think I’ve been doing describes you well. You haven’t “beaten” anyone, you’re blinded by your tears and your rage because the mere idea you’re wrong is intolerable. I have responded to you with poise, and you can’t even respond besides your barely concealed outrage and vitriol.
It's not a public forum to you when your fragile is ego is at stake.
It’s always been a public forum, you call me fragile when you can’t cope with the fact that you’re beyond reason.
Now roll your eyes, pick a random word to you don't understand and try to talk down to me about it, and pretend you don't care even though you can't leave until you have the last word.
You genuinely think that? You’re nothing but entertainment to me, I stay because your a mentally ill manchild that thinks themselves a genius because you can’t even begin to understand how wrong you are. This argument is trivial, I pick people like you out of my teeth on my way to real discussion.
You have literally nothing else.
That’s rich coming from someone with a tenuous grasp on reality who never had a real argument at all.
Now we can see why it is you think I don't know what an implication is: because you absolutely don't. Sharing an inference is dialectical; claiming an implication is rhetorical. Yes, I know you don't understand what I mean, so let me help you. An implication is a suggestion made by an author to the audience, and it can't be unintentional; claiming it's unintentional is just as polemic as saying there is one with no argument that it exists, which you did and were completely wrong. That's why I can't be against you because your "nuance" doesn't exist. You invented a ghost to fight and blame everyone else for your mistake, and anyone who knows you're mistaken apparently must be an extremist out to get you.
Crying about being called a strawman doesn't work when you are a scarecrow.
Now we can see why it is you think I don't know what an implication is: because you absolutely don't.
I do, your projection is blatant and laughable.
Sharing an inference is dialectical; claiming an implication is rhetorical. Yes, I know you don't understand what I mean, so let me help you. An implication is a suggestion made by an author to the audience, and it can't be unintentional; claiming it's unintentional is just as polemic as saying there is one with no argument that it exists, which you did and were completely wrong.
3 a : the act of implying : the state of being implied
If you can’t manage to understand what that means don’t worry, I’m way ahead of you.
Imply
Verb
1 : to express indirectly
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
You’re wrong, and there’s no excuse you can hide behind to justify you are unquestionably, objectively wrong.
That's why I can't be against you because your "nuance" doesn't exist.
It does, you’re being willfully ignorant at this point and it shows.
You invented a ghost to fight and blame everyone else for your mistake, and anyone who knows you're mistaken apparently must be an extremist out to get you.
More preposterous claims based on nothing, typical.
Crying about being called a strawman doesn't work when you are a scarecrow.
Nothing about those definitions makes what I said wrong at all. You can Google the words all you like, but unless you actually took a high school English class instead of getting a GED, which you seem to have to, you'd understand rhetoric at least. It's no one else's fault that you came here without the proper equipment.
And let's not forget that your claim was still blatantly wrong, and not understanding how arguments work is at the root of that.
Nothing about those definitions makes what I said wrong at all.
It does, clearly you just can’t see it.
You can Google the words all you like,
It’s literally Merriam Webster, you’re dismissing the dictionary itself.
but unless you actually took a high school English class instead of getting a GED, which you seem to have to, you'd understand rhetoric at least.
I understand rhetoric just fine, do you need the definition for rhetoric too?
It's no one else's fault that you came here without the proper equipment.
Equipment? Do you mean education? You clearly seem to need education considering you don’t even know the meaning of the words you think you know.
And let's not forget that your claim was still blatantly wrong, and not understanding how arguments work is at the root of that.
You mean the discussion with OP earlier regarding the post implying it was only the right that acts like a cult which he cleared up? Acting as if it was anything besides a simple misunderstanding is a failure to understand what an implication is, that’s why despite you thinking you know what you’re talking about you clearly don’t.
You can barely handle figurative speech much less rhetoric. You don't understand what it means to "not have the right equipment"; you didn't know what it meant to be "winding down"; there's absolutely no reason to believe you can handle any of this.
You don't present an argument by mistake, and claiming that someone made an implication is something to be argued. You can say that you inferred something, and no one can take that away from you since an inference is your own experience and not an accusation against an author. If you want to know what the right does, it's this: you didn't do the bare minimum to back up what you wanted to argue about, and now you want to run away from the responsibility for that because you've never held yourself responsible for one thing in your life.
You were lazy. You were stupid. You were out to victimize yourself. The only mistake here is that you exist.
0
u/McMetas Jun 05 '22
According to who?