Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”)
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
That is not something anyone here has said, dumbass
Seems that way. Person 2 above said “it’s not x but it is y”, person above said “you can stop at it’s not x” implying to me they are fine with “but it is y”. What’s wrong with that inference?
No
Valuable addition. I ask “why is that inference wrong” and you say “no”.
👍
🍆💦😜
I was wondering when the homophobia/misogyny/general creep behavior would show up
I like that you didn’t even settle on one, you’re just like “I don’t like this😭😭😭, let me grab a few misc words and chain them together”.
I mean, I get it. There’s no meaning behind the message so you have to put together several fake meanings and hope they stick.
I’m just used to y’all going “I’m not being homophobic lol, you might be a woman!” So I’m just preempting
What’s wrong with it is it’s factually inaccurate, fucking duh. You can stop at “it’s not genocide” because that by itself is an entirely accurate statement, everything you said after that is bullshit, and the comment you’re referring to was not ambiguous about that at all so you have absolutely no excuse for pretending otherwise.
No, he said everything else is some type of castle. I looked this castle up and it aligns well with the idea that he’s trying to shut down the other claims without considering them.
From the wiki:
So he’s technically saying that the rest of the post is modest claims which are easy to defend, ie he agrees with Y. (I’m assuming the bailey is genocide and the motte is the claims of ethnic cleansing w/out genocide)
Lol try harder patriot
Another solid argument that gets right to the real point of all this.
Arguments are for disagreements in good faith with people who are honest, you’re a lying sack of shit so you do not warrant an argument, cry about it