• Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    OP literally did not attempt to have any discussion of any kind, and explicitly said they had no interest in doing so

    that’s the definition of “not in good faith” homie

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        No, good faith argument is being a debatelord, as was explained to me at length in the last post. People who just happen to see the post and respond are all brigading if they come from an instance that has a cross-post. Them’s the rules.

        Don’t bullshit me that there is a proper way to argue with that fucker, he demonstrated at length that there was not.

      • jaywalker [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why can’t an OP have a good faith argument if the post gets “brigaded”? That doesn’t really make sense to me. Anyone can choose to argue in good faith regardless of how the other party behaves.

        • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well for several reasons.

          1. You have to find someone who actually wants to have a good faith argument with you.

          2. You have to be disciplined enough to only argue with them, as you will expend energy arguing with the 500 other commenters who are just trolling you.

          3. Actually be able to go through your inbox and find the replies of the person you think is actually acting in good faith.

          4. Be in the mood to argue in good faith. Which is unlikely from the begining, basically impossible at the end.