No, I understand it, there are 2 context in which a person might be called a Trump Supported - A person who offers actual tangible support for a cause - an activist. and a person who just generally supports the principals of a thing - a slactivist. Like I imagine you "support" israel / Palestine (delete as appropriate) but you're not on the front lines, or sending them money (except tax money in the case of the former). I understand that. My point is you're jumping back and forth so you can have it both ways. I'm one kind when I am to be called a nazi or a fascist, THEN it's ok to call me a trump supporter. And I'm the other kind when you want to mock me for having an opinion, a preference, or and interest in something that I cannot tangible support, them I'm stupid or lying by calling myself a trump supporter.
You're being disingenuous so you can feel YOU somehow won the argument.
And I am well informed enough to have an opinion. If I was of the same opinion as you, you wouldn't suggest I'm uninformed. The reason why you're pretending to think that now is because it's convenient for you to use my nationality to dismiss my opinion.
There's a lot of shit in that where it's clear you're not arguing with me, but the version of me that is in your head (A lot of this going around today! That little fella must be super busy!) "nobody actually said ANYTHING that's bad under Trump" "You keep trying to play the victim" "weird-ass rambly tangents". There's nothing in that for me, so I'll let the little guy take it. Just imagine how he'd respond to those accusations, and take that fight to your own head.
BUT I will take up one point: "Wilfully ignoring any and all points that don't fit their narrative" Nope. I DO listen to you lot. Even the psycho's. Even the ones I dismiss because it's clear they have no interest in arguing with me, but with what they THINK I said. I listen. I wait for examples, I sometimes get them, and if I've the energy I will debate them. I don't ignore you, or pretend you lot don't make your points. I simply don't agree with them. Sometimes because the points are wrong. Sometimes because I can identify the specific CNN host who is talking through you. Sometimes because I know people I trust better who have counter anecdotes that better fit what I DO see. And sometimes because you guys don't give me anything but appeals to emotion. But I do listen. I DO try to understand. And I DO try to remember your side (which is harder being that F!S is an anonymous batshit rage farm, but I try) But none of that means I have to change my opinion. Not EVEN if anything you lot said was reasonable, but I like to think if anyone said anything reasonable and compelling and truly ground-breaking that obviously came from a place of being better informed, I would take it on board. In fact I can think of one occasion when Philstar DID say something new I hadn't known about, and when I took it to my burger munchers they told me shit like "I dunno" "Maybe technically" "That sounds like bullshit" and just straight up "No that's not true" but it was a point of law, and while a few of them SUTDIED law, at bare minimum I believe Philstar isn't lying about being an ACTUAL lawyer, so I give Phil more weight than them. But with the rest of this shit? I see no reason to, having heard and assessed and found the arguments as compelling a pissgate - Some one in this very thread told me with utter 100$ conviction that Tulsi Gabbard is a russian asset. That "Fact" is just a part of their world, you want me to take that into my own brain to prove I'm not ignoring people who contradict me on this community? Fuck no. - No, however I am with REASONABLE points, I have NO obligation to concede to the unreasonable ones. But I DO listen to them.
no subject
You're being disingenuous so you can feel YOU somehow won the argument.
And I am well informed enough to have an opinion. If I was of the same opinion as you, you wouldn't suggest I'm uninformed. The reason why you're pretending to think that now is because it's convenient for you to use my nationality to dismiss my opinion.
There's a lot of shit in that where it's clear you're not arguing with me, but the version of me that is in your head (A lot of this going around today! That little fella must be super busy!) "nobody actually said ANYTHING that's bad under Trump" "You keep trying to play the victim" "weird-ass rambly tangents". There's nothing in that for me, so I'll let the little guy take it. Just imagine how he'd respond to those accusations, and take that fight to your own head.
BUT I will take up one point: "Wilfully ignoring any and all points that don't fit their narrative" Nope. I DO listen to you lot. Even the psycho's. Even the ones I dismiss because it's clear they have no interest in arguing with me, but with what they THINK I said. I listen. I wait for examples, I sometimes get them, and if I've the energy I will debate them. I don't ignore you, or pretend you lot don't make your points. I simply don't agree with them. Sometimes because the points are wrong. Sometimes because I can identify the specific CNN host who is talking through you. Sometimes because I know people I trust better who have counter anecdotes that better fit what I DO see. And sometimes because you guys don't give me anything but appeals to emotion. But I do listen. I DO try to understand. And I DO try to remember your side (which is harder being that F!S is an anonymous batshit rage farm, but I try) But none of that means I have to change my opinion. Not EVEN if anything you lot said was reasonable, but I like to think if anyone said anything reasonable and compelling and truly ground-breaking that obviously came from a place of being better informed, I would take it on board. In fact I can think of one occasion when Philstar DID say something new I hadn't known about, and when I took it to my burger munchers they told me shit like "I dunno" "Maybe technically" "That sounds like bullshit" and just straight up "No that's not true" but it was a point of law, and while a few of them SUTDIED law, at bare minimum I believe Philstar isn't lying about being an ACTUAL lawyer, so I give Phil more weight than them. But with the rest of this shit? I see no reason to, having heard and assessed and found the arguments as compelling a pissgate - Some one in this very thread told me with utter 100$ conviction that Tulsi Gabbard is a russian asset. That "Fact" is just a part of their world, you want me to take that into my own brain to prove I'm not ignoring people who contradict me on this community? Fuck no. - No, however I am with REASONABLE points, I have NO obligation to concede to the unreasonable ones. But I DO listen to them.