I’ve noticed that the pattern of you and your ilk is pretty much never to respond directly to what was said, but just with each message to throw a few vaguely-related statements out, generally just vague anti-Biden statements without connection to the previous conversation. It’s like a slow motion Gish Gallop.
sucking Bidens dick trying to prove to everyone that he’s not as bad as trump
Okay, sure. Lay out for me how Biden is as bad as Trump. Or, change the subject to another talking point non sequitur if you like, you do you.
It is a key feature of propagandists that factual conversations tend to get sidelined in favor of emotional appeal or blatant hostility, often centered around quick one-liner arguments or he-said-she-said hostility (often with the positions mischaracterized or exaggerated to the point of caricature, as in this example).
I said US foreign policy is pretty bad and Biden support monsters
They said I’m sucking Biden’s dick and mocked the idea that there’s a difference between the parties
I asked how Biden is as bad as Trump
Hostility, “retarded,” “did you hit your head,” and a sudden shift to asserting that both parties aren’t the same.
The Card Says Moops lays out a lot of how it works. The hostility because both parties are the same has now transformed into hostility alongside the fact that they’re not the same; the facts have morphed 180 degrees to suit what will “win” the current exchange, but the bitterness and hostility is the constant.
(Edit: Further more explicit example, I quickly looked back in this person’s history and found “As a Canadian, yeah both of your right wing parties are essentially the same.”)
I could point out that I literally criticized Biden in a couple different ways during my message #1, but it won’t change the flow of the conversation. My guess is we’ll now shift to a new non sequitur attack.
In a normal conversation, you’d just openly clarify what you actually believe and we could move past it. I literally quoted you two different ways in the very message you’re responding to, seeming to say that Biden is as bad as Trump.
If I’ve gotten you wrong or I’m missing context to the statements I quoted, then you can just say hey, here’s what I actually think, and after the clarification we can have a productive factual conversation, whether we ultimately agree or disagree. But it seems like you’re not into that.
Why would I waste my time trying to convince his cult to change policy, when Joe Biden (the current president FYI) has some chance to listen to reason.
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread: “If you were incessantly posting articles about productive ways to push the establishment Democrats to the left, and support for the rare handful of them that actually represent the people decently well, you and I would be very much on the same page, but just relentlessly shitting on Biden is something that I feel like giving a response to.”
(And, for what it’s worth, I feel almost as irritated at articles relentlessly shitting on Trump for some trivial thing; he slurred his words for 2 seconds or he dropped a water bottle or something. It’s just not relevant and it takes bandwidth away from talking about things that are extremely relevant.)
criticism of the democratic party or Joe Biden is not de facto support for trump.
Quoting myself from very very recently: “I could point out that I literally criticized Biden in a couple different ways during my message #1, but it won’t change the flow of the conversation.”
(And, indeed, it hasn’t. You didn’t say anything along the lines of “Oh, I get it, you are open to criticizing Biden for his Israel policy or his friendship with the corporate-apocalypse world in general, and have done it yourself, let me absorb that and we can start to converse along different lines even if we still disagree on some significant issues.” Nope, just more telling me what I believe even when I’m explicitly telling you otherwise, and then calling me “retard” and beating up on the imaginary belief you’ve assigned to me.)
If you have to silence valid critics
Me disagreeing with you is in no way shape or form “silencing” you. That equivalence is another standard propaganda technique. If you feel slighted when I “psychoanalyze” you, stop using conservative propagandistic strawmen that are so well-known they’re a cliché at this point.
deleted by creator
I’ve noticed that the pattern of you and your ilk is pretty much never to respond directly to what was said, but just with each message to throw a few vaguely-related statements out, generally just vague anti-Biden statements without connection to the previous conversation. It’s like a slow motion Gish Gallop.
Okay, sure. Lay out for me how Biden is as bad as Trump. Or, change the subject to another talking point non sequitur if you like, you do you.
deleted by creator
He never said that. You go full retard on Biden whereas trump if you truly don’t like him gets no criticism from you. Your bias is showing.
deleted by creator
It is a key feature of propagandists that factual conversations tend to get sidelined in favor of emotional appeal or blatant hostility, often centered around quick one-liner arguments or he-said-she-said hostility (often with the positions mischaracterized or exaggerated to the point of caricature, as in this example).
The Card Says Moops lays out a lot of how it works. The hostility because both parties are the same has now transformed into hostility alongside the fact that they’re not the same; the facts have morphed 180 degrees to suit what will “win” the current exchange, but the bitterness and hostility is the constant.
(Edit: Further more explicit example, I quickly looked back in this person’s history and found “As a Canadian, yeah both of your right wing parties are essentially the same.”)
I could point out that I literally criticized Biden in a couple different ways during my message #1, but it won’t change the flow of the conversation. My guess is we’ll now shift to a new non sequitur attack.
Observe:
deleted by creator
In a normal conversation, you’d just openly clarify what you actually believe and we could move past it. I literally quoted you two different ways in the very message you’re responding to, seeming to say that Biden is as bad as Trump.
If I’ve gotten you wrong or I’m missing context to the statements I quoted, then you can just say hey, here’s what I actually think, and after the clarification we can have a productive factual conversation, whether we ultimately agree or disagree. But it seems like you’re not into that.
This is why I linked to “The Card Says Moops.”
deleted by creator
Quoting myself from earlier in the thread: “If you were incessantly posting articles about productive ways to push the establishment Democrats to the left, and support for the rare handful of them that actually represent the people decently well, you and I would be very much on the same page, but just relentlessly shitting on Biden is something that I feel like giving a response to.”
(And, for what it’s worth, I feel almost as irritated at articles relentlessly shitting on Trump for some trivial thing; he slurred his words for 2 seconds or he dropped a water bottle or something. It’s just not relevant and it takes bandwidth away from talking about things that are extremely relevant.)
Quoting myself from very very recently: “I could point out that I literally criticized Biden in a couple different ways during my message #1, but it won’t change the flow of the conversation.”
(And, indeed, it hasn’t. You didn’t say anything along the lines of “Oh, I get it, you are open to criticizing Biden for his Israel policy or his friendship with the corporate-apocalypse world in general, and have done it yourself, let me absorb that and we can start to converse along different lines even if we still disagree on some significant issues.” Nope, just more telling me what I believe even when I’m explicitly telling you otherwise, and then calling me “retard” and beating up on the imaginary belief you’ve assigned to me.)
Me disagreeing with you is in no way shape or form “silencing” you. That equivalence is another standard propaganda technique. If you feel slighted when I “psychoanalyze” you, stop using conservative propagandistic strawmen that are so well-known they’re a cliché at this point.
deleted by creator