582
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago
[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

another appeal to ridicule? can't you just accept that it takes two to tango, and you are actively making this place worse?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No seriously, are you okay? It does not, in fact, take two, lest you seek one person to run their mouths and the other to just take it. So unless you're suggesting we enable bullying without pushing the bully back or fallacies without objection, I'm not really sure what the point is that you're making.

So kindly explain your thought-process when you respond with simply re-quoting what I said and nothing more; for overall I think my comments remained largely neutral, barring the low-hanging fruit you identified and which I even acknowledged.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

, I’m not really sure what the point is that you’re making.

i'm saying don't use dishonest rhetoric

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm fine with that; just make sure you go to the other user in the thread and say the same thing.

Did you do that?

Did you tell them as well that, "it takes two to tango"?

Curiously you did not.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Did you do that?

Did you tell them as well that, “it takes two to tango”?

Curiously you did not.

i asked you to be the bigger person.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Double-standard.

Ask both. Go on... It "takes two to tango," after all.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

you'll forgive me if this reads as though you are not only acting in bad faith, but know you are, and plan to continue.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

do you think they would be more willing than you to stop engaging dishonestly?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Who's engaging dishonestly? Citation needed. That has yet to be substantively evinced.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

you admitted that you were using fallacious rhetoric already (thouh your admission is not necessary: it was prima facie). but you also (correctly) pointed out a strawman, which is also fallacious rhetoric.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

kindly explain your thought-process when you respond with simply re-quoting what I said

i was pointing out the hypocrisy

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

What's hypocritical about noting, "these, 'Got it. You just don’t x.' responses are tiresome"? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I'm not allowed to call this out?

And why are you replying multiple times to the same comment instead of just consolidating your response into one?

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

why are you replying multiple times to the same comment instead of just consolidating your response into one?

i don't like to have multiple ideas in one comment, and i have found it's an excellent tactic for breaking up a gish gallop. you can read more here:

https://lemmy.world/post/10922324

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Hmm, that's really strange. I'll just report you for spam then. Thanks.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

in the months that have followed, this has neverbeen an issue for me.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What’s hypocritical about noting, “these, ‘Got it. You just don’t x.’ responses are tiresome”? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I’m not allowed to call this out?

i'm saying you are doing teh same thing, and you're right that they are exhausting, so you should also knock it off.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
582 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30908 readers
1599 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS