TiggerYumYum

I randomly came across you and saw the tag I left you. Lol

"No you" really? Are you a child?

Lord have mercy.

User A stated that property damage is not violence.

User B expanded on that topic (not a derailment because it is relevant. A derailment would be them talking about another topic, example: music) and challenged the scope of different definitions of violence. You ignored this.

When you asked User B if they agree that property damage is violence, they stated their position that yes, it can be.

There are TWO different people, with TWO different opinions, and you are mixing them up.

Really? I came across you again. Still acting in bad faith, huh? The founder Eric likes his Pebble watches, and wants to make it again. What is with you and your lack of understanding? How hard is that to believe?

See? Still bad faith.

The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded "I was right" with very simple ideas. They didn't admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don't understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.

See? Bad faith.

Based on your bad faith acting. Ya know, the whole conversation up above.

The initial claim was made by a different user. The user you're talking about elaborated on the importance of context, so they didn't contradict themselves.

With reading comprehension like that...

I tagged them as "bad faith actor".

You're hostile to so many people who pointed out the obvious flaws in your logic.

I read your comments.

You're incapable of self-reflection and incapable of admitting you're wrong. Pathetic.