• TheFonz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    here is an example of your empty rhetoric:

    sure as hell isn’t PANDERING! What the fuck is wrong with you??

    Typical apologist tactic

    PRETENDING to care about the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians

    deflecting to your conspiracy theory

    shows that YOU don’t care enough about Palestinian lives

    give me a fucking break.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Those are all taken out of context and make perfect sense WITH context. This is Faux News level distortion if not downright Alex Jones lunacy 🙄

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        no. its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I’ve seen you in. Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone’s arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations. You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I’ll be waiting for you there when you’re ready.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I’ve seen you in.

          Nope. I sometimes use grand words for accuracy or emphasis, but never disingenuously like you’re doing right now. Grandstanding is EMPTY posturing, not emphatically saying true and important things.

          Since you obviously don’t know the difference, here’s a short primer:

          When a Republican says that they’re being silenced by the government during a prime time TV appearance to promote their new book, that’s grandstanding.

          When a progressive who doesn’t take corporate PAC money emphatically says that billionaires and their corporations have too much power over society, that’s not grandstanding.

          Do you understand it now or do you need me to find a video explaining it with puppets?

          Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone’s arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations.

          I do that every time. I only get snide and sarcastic about it once it’s clear that the other person is not engaging in good faith and/or ignoring something I already explained because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

          You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I’ll be waiting for you there when you’re ready.

          And there’s some more of that hypocrisy from the same person who excused ME of grandstanding just a few sentences earlier 🤦

          Are you SURE you’re not a Republican? Even the worst neoliberals usually aren’t THAT blatantly hypocritical…

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m not the one constantly loading every phrase with all the virtuous condemnation diarrhea because I can actually engage with arguments without attacking the character of the author.

            Attack the idea-not the people.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Attack the idea-not the people.

              That would have been a LOT easier to take seriously if it hadn’t been appended to a comment consisting entirely of baseless personal attacks 😂

              • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                Also, at no point did I fucking defend Biden. I just called out your stupid analogy about Cuba. Seems like you just had all the insults ready to deploy and were never interested in the argument.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.

                  As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.

                  Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:

                  My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.

                  Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn’t.

                  • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn’t like doing and would stop if he could

                    Thank goodness it wasn’t my argument.

                    the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy

                    correct. And my response was…? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn’t clear:

                    What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It’s not apples to apples, is it?