371
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 15 Aug 2023
371 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32287 readers
529 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
this is just sad.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @meth_dragon@hexbear.net linked the article, clearly indicating it's not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @meth_dragon@hexbear.net was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
I honestly think this guy might be some kind of troll. every single exchange he has with people results in him reusing these points.
careful you don’t sprain something with those mental gymnastics!
clearly you know how to lie badly in an attempt to cover another pile of lies, but not how to lie well enough to convince someone smart than a small woodland creature— or yourselves.
you know what would be impressive? if any of you could just admit you made a mistake and dropped this whole charade.
What more do you want than "I was exaggerating"? Once that was said, this whole BS could've just stopped. You then say "ok, now that we're clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?" But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it's so misleading, I'm sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would've initially just edited if you were so concerned that this "lie" would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you've proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
should have just called him names to begin with, this was one of the most pathetic interactions i've had online in recent memory
although i guess it's possible he's like 11 and can't really come up with anything else
Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there's some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
since it was an obvious lie - not an "exaggeration" - not lying about it for hours and hours would be a nice place to start.
because I’m not stupid enough to believe such a feeble lie.
I that were true, they would have after I confronted them rather than doubling down, again and again, with one lie to cover another. for hours.
refusing to accept such an obvious and feeble lie is not “acting in bad faith”. you coming here to try to gaslight me into believing that lie, however, IS:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
"for hours" lol fuck off loser it's the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.
And "gaslight" and "abuse"? Jesus Christ kid, that's some shit. I'm not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.
way to prove my point with a swear- and insult-filled tantrum.
gee, ya promise? lmao