637
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
637 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse memes
1183 readers
732 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
Specific
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !de_ml@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !fedigrow@lemm.ee
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn't agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He's not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.
I'm not salty about talking to him, I simply don't see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I'll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.
and his response to that was:
Translation. We don't fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.
Translation. We can (which doesn't mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).
Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)
And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to "not call people tankies" even though he's exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.
There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I'm sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I've made my point to the people will listen.
The fact that you felt the need to write out - at length - your extremely one-sided and obviously self serving account of the argument makes me even more convinced that you lost an argument and are extremely salty about it.
Sounds like projection on your part.
No, the comment was already in English. You're just ignoring what he actually said so you can create a lazy strawman. I'm unsurprised that you were absolutely the one not discussing in good faith.
Again, no. You can't address what he said, so you're making up your own strawman.
What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don't like him disagreeing with you.
OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you've already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.
Any actual examples though?
Yes, that's what arguing for your position is. What is he supposed to do, just automatically concede to you?
Uhuh. Still seems like you're the one arguing in bad faith.
You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you're just salty someone disagreed with you.
I rest my case: you just consider anyone disagreeing with you in any way to be unacceptable.
Sure.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Ad hominem
Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he's not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.
Besides the one I mentioned? Well there's also the one where he's pushed about being critical of Russia's actions he deflects to America being worse.
Ad hominem
Ad hominem conclusion.
Where is the substance?
Incorrect, it is not an ad hominem.
Again, no it isn't.
Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
Are you saying that OP has changed their mind?
Still not what an ad hominem is. Or a one liner for that matter...
No, an actual example
That's not an example though. That's literally just him stating his opinion.
Can you actually learn what "ad hominem" means and come and try again?
Okay. I looked up the definition of ad hominem and I came to a conclusion, it's still ad hominem. Maybe you should learn what is it and then come back when you've actually got something to say.