this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
-66 points (19.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7182 readers
655 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago (7 children)

I have made my opinion on the subject quite clear from the outset. Please don’t gaslight me into thinking I’ve somehow been hiding anything. I have not.

You have been entirely unclear and have been consistently evasive. I have noted several examples of this and you are avoiding them, too. Don't think I don't notice what you conveniently skip over when you respond. I am giving you the opportunity to save a little face but instead you keep trying to return focus to topics where you behaved shamefully. You have the options of moving on or getting into it, and when you get into it you have the disadvantage of having behaved very dishonestly in this exchange and being seemingly unable to acknowledge objective errors.

The entire time, I’ve told you what my position is. You’re simply refused to acknowledge it because you wanted a simple “yes” or “no” answer regarding a subject that is anything but binary.

I have not asked for a yes or no answer regarding "a subject". I asked a direct yes or no question and you hemmed and hawed for 5-6 comments and have now more or less fallen apart having provided an answer that was an "emphatic no", then a "yes and no" and now a "yes". At some point you will have to either accept that saying "no", "yes and no", and "yes" to a yes or no question is inconsistent or you will have to keep dealing with this congitive dissonance, as I am not going to validate your nonsense.

PS a yes or no question is indeed binary. That is the only property it has aside from being a question.

Okay I’m starting to wonder if maybe you have an overly literal way of thinking.

No, you just present a confused mess, don't respond directly to what is said, and dance around blaming me for your garbled mess of thoughts and deflections. I am not being "overly literal" in expecting a yes or no answer to my question, I stated my question as a direct yes or no precisely because liberal genocide apologists always try to dissemble, leaving their complicit answer implicit. And what did you do in response? You immediately tried to do their exact same dance. A near-complete incapacity to just answer the direct question.

It seems clear that what I was talking about was not you interpretation of my answer, but your opinion on it.

As in - do you agree? Disagree?

I have already stated, twice, that I'm glad we're in agreement given a "yes" answer. This is now a third time.

At the same time, I would not be surprised if you later contradicted yourself, as you have been anything but forthright and have already said every possible (explicitly incompatible!) answer to my question.

Do you think my answer is insufficient?

I think it is a very low bar to have cleared, but it is an actual "yes" answer to my simple yes or no question, so it is not insufficient for answering the question. 30 comments in, lmao. I did actually directly announce my acceptance of the "yes" twice and then move on to my point about it, but... alas.

Do you think I’m lying?

It is not a question that you have lied in this exchange. You have lied about basic facts of what has been said, objectively disprovable. You have also contradicted yourself repeatedly. I think you are about 80% confused and 20% willing to be dishonest to protect your ego, but that combination means you are acting shamefully.

Because you have literally given me an "emphatic no", "yes and no", and now a "yes" answer to my one question, I would be pretty stupid to think you are going to stick with the "yes" answer. But I am willing to be generous and move forward under the assumption that it is your actual, honest answer. I wonder how that generosity will be treated.

What is your actual follow up to “learning” (even though you already knew) that I am against genocide, and against voting for genocidal candidates? What happens next? Are you going to ask me something else, are you going to make a statement regarding this position?

I already provided a short follow-up. Presumably you did not read my whole comment before beginning your response. Remember, you have cleared an incredibly low bar. The conversation has to more or less start over at this point, we have returned to my very first point and your very first point. All of these intervening comments? They are just me trying to get you to answer a simple yes or no question, and now you have said "yes".

So you are overly literal. My answer was an emphatic no regarding supporting genocide and genocide deniers.

It is not overly literal to read you say you gave an "emphatic no" to my question, then I go read my question and say, "oh they are saying "no" to it" and work from there. It is a basic baseline of communication. It's not my fault that you are answering questions I never asked and then presenting them to me as if they were answers to questions I did ask. That is also not being overly literal.

When asked if I support them, I denied this emphatically.

You were never asked whether you "support genocide or genocide deniers". Throw this lie on the pile.

Two days ago I led with a question regarding support: "So then you agree that you should not support genocide nor vote for genocidal candidates?". You deflected like liberals do on this topic: "I disagree that the situation is that simple." I pressed you to answer, you dissembled and tried to talk about a bunch of things re: false choices and then told me it was a loaded question, though you lacked the terminology to just say that. This continued for some time, and I repeated my question. You then said your answer had already been stated as "no", though of course you had never said that, you were dissembling and rationalizing and saying the question was loaded. The whole point of a loaded question is that you cannot answer it without saying something false. So many self-contradictions, lol. I again repeated that I was looking for a yes or a no and you then provided a lengthy response that I ignored and continue to ignore. Haven't read it. Not going to. I set my condition and you blew right past it, confirming the dishonest behavior I was originally criticizing.

Then I asked my question again, albeit rephrased: "Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?" And then, and only then, did anything about "genocide" deniers pop up, out of the blue, and it was all from your own head. I ask you about voting for genocidal candidates and you act like saying "I don't support genocide deniers" is an answer to it. And you've just done it again! Do you see how confused you are? Of course not, that must be my fault. "Too literal", lmao.

Here’s a question - are you honestly unable to take anything other than the singular word “no” as a negative? Does “absolutely not” count? How about an explanation why, such as “I would never, because that is wrong!”? Now, before you say “but you never said these things”, these are what’s known as examples.

A key part of my original point, which you apparently still don't get, is that liberals are extremely averse to answering this direct yes or no question. Getting a direct yes or no is the point. And you flailed and flailed and confused yourself instead.

Now, before you say “but you never said these things”, these are what’s known as examples.

Certainly not examples of anything you or I have said. They are hypotheticals, poorly-framed. As you are trying to dispute what was or was not said, you might want to communicate what is something you're making up vs. something you're saying you did in the past. You have used both implicitly.

When I said “I do not support genocide of genocide deniers”, that is me emphatically denying support for genocide and genocide deniers. An emphatic “no”. When asked “do you” and I say “I do not”, that is a “no” in other words; a negative response; a denial.

Yeah again I never asked that question.

Here’s some honesty for you - it actually boils my blood to be told I’m lying when I know I’m actually speaking my mind. It angers me a great deal to be misinterpreted to such a degree. I am not lying.

You claimed you answered my question days ago when you obviously did not. Your reattempts at explanation, ones that ignore everything I've said to you about this, demonstrate that well enough. You are still presenting your answers to questions I didn't ask as if you had answered my one question! Still! This isn't complicated! It's a yes or no question!

If you took a few minutes to self-crit and actually read what was said, actually read what I said about this exact thing, you would recognize your error. Unfortunately you are not doing any self-crit at all, and are just trying to lash out irrationally, like a liberal, and are repeating these falsehoods. Sorry buddy, that's what lying looks like.

Do self-crit. I am going to skip responses that are just rehashing this one point because they are redundant.

Oh, please. Obviously I cared at least a little bit what you thought or else I never would have said anything. Don’t be so facetious.

I said "cared much", not "cared at all". You are still confused because you don't really read and understand what I say to you. If you took a few moments to think about it, you would also realize that your logic here would contradict what you had just said re: not caring anymore. You're still replying, aren't you? You should have a conversation with yourself from a few comments ago.

My response will have to be split in two as it is too long.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Genocide is, of course, wrong. Supporting those that perpetuate it is also wrong.

Not a yes or no, but it still equates to the same thing.

Right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

"Supporting those that perpetuate it is also wrong" lacks the specific point of my question, the part intended to be agitational. If you hadn't noticed, liberals are in their usual panic mode a few weeks before the presidential election. It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?

So while I could say that and say they are the same thing, I do not presume everyone else would mean the same thing. Hence why I ask a direct question and am not wishy-washy about this shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?

It is exactly this attitude I criticise - in you, as well.

There is no voting that will stop this genocide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

There is nothing in my attitude that is about that. Please do your best to not lie.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not lying. I'm telling you my honest impression that arises from your insistence on this question, in this context.

When I see you asking if it's okay to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, I'm not seeing that in a vacuum, am I? Are you asking me to see that question in a vacuum? Because you asked it in a thread about the US election. It seems obvious to conclude that this question is connected to the US election, not some other hypothetical election where it might be possible to successfully vote away genocide.

So, like you begged me to, I ask - are you actually trying to ask that question in a vacuum, disconnected from current events? That's the only way it makes sense to me, but if that's the case it seems a pointless question in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not lying. I'm telling you my honest impression that arises from your insistence on this question, in this context.

Nah you're making up a story and believing it despite correction. Or, as a shorthand: lying.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

No, that is literally the "knee-jerk reaction" I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.

Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it's so simple?

What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You are describing your process of making a guess. You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected and are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.

You know, lying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

You are describing your process of making a guess.

...yes? I guessed at your intention.

You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected

Because that's not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.

are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.

....no? I'm just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said "what looked like"??

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

Because that's not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.

No, you are calling this your ongoing criticism.

It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?

It is exactly this attitude I criticise - in you, as well.

There is no voting that will stop this genocide.

I am not going to explain linear time again. You are again presenting contradictory narratives because you cannot rationalize your own statements but you are simultaneously so defensive of them that you can't just acknowledge your mistake and move on.

I will not be replying further in this particular comment chain. This is beyond repetitive and you need to do self-crit instead of saying nonsense and forcing me to do the crit for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I do not support genocide or genocidal candidates.

Can we move on to the next step yet?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Sure go right ahead. What is the next step that you would like?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

O master, that lies in your hands!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like you don't know what you want

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I want you to understand what I'm saying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You are acting in a way that comes across as the electronic version of mania

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

And you're trying to wield a psychiatric diagnosis in this discussion... why?

Well, I guess I'll take that as a "no".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't take a specialist to recognize manic behavior.

And like I keep saying, you should probably take a break.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn’t take a specialist to recognize manic behavior.

It's not your credentials I'm calling into question.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If you have ever been around manic people, you will know that they behave irrationally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like youbwould prefer to end this conversation. Happy to oblige.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh, brother. Ffs. I'm talking about wielding psychiatric diagnoses. It's a blatant ad hominem. Your willingness to just whip out a mental health condition as a reason not to listen to someone makes me question your integrity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It is a simple description of your erratic behavior. Rather than acknowledge the behavior you are yet again getting defensive and trying to make this a fault of mine. See the pattern?

Anyways I will be ignoring you now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It is a simple description of your erratic behavior

You are actually incapable of admitting fault, aren't you?

Notice that I didn't actually deny acting manic? Just like I never denied the behaviour that made me appear like a liberal. I only deny being a liberal, because I have thoroughly rejected the ideology - quite some time ago, in fact. Many years.

No, what I take issue with here is your use of an ad hominem, unjustified, and not even batting an eye at the sheer audacity of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

As I mentioned, I won't be responding

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago

Understood, easier to keep thinking you're 100% right that way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago

I think genocide is wrong, and candidates that deny yet support the genocide of Palestine should not be supported.

Satisfied yet?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

I do not think it is right to support genocide, or to vote for genocidal candidates.

Where do we go from here?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

I agree that it's wrong to support genocide, or to vote for genocidal candidates.

Where from here?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

I do not support genocide, or genocidal candidates.

What's next?