Sentrovasi

I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You’re not winning any argument against anyone because all they’re telling you is that you’re obnoxious. You can’t spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.

You’re not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I’m even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.

I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you’re a real piece of shit.

Nobody’s going to want to answer your “direct questions” or engage with your “assertions” (I’m leaving out “patience” because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don’t think you see it).

Does that mean you “win”? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn’t.

This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to “win” by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They’re not trying to beat you, they’re trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.

And if you really think that you’ve won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.

I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a “complete lack of logic”: I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that’s what you regard as “polite”. Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.

Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you’re criticising.

I didn’t think it was misleading, but when I read it I automatically thought the article was talking about the extent of pollution in the ocean, not what everyone else seems to be interpreting it as…

Assuming what he’s saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:

“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”

How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he’s never been called out for?

Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.

EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that’s 8% of it being pure sugar.

The other person is saying that devaluing the US dollar would make it easier for others to buy American products.

I assumed you thought they were talking about strengthening the US dollar, so I pointed out that the original post (yours, I realise now) was talking about devaluation. Not sure why you think devaluation would give greater buying power.

The original post was asking about why devaluing the dollar would be good for Americans.

Excuse me? Who are the original people in your book and which year is the baseline?

I’m someone who doesn’t have a huge stake in either side and still this take astounds me.

I think it’s an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.

I honestly can say I’ve never quicksaved to kill an NPC for slighting me.

Some of those are answered. Some of those are also answered in the piece they linked that talks about the zoning issues. And some of those don’t have an answer beyond the obvious. I think the root of your unhappiness may lie with the few points that fit into that last category, but that’s hardly the fault of an article that I wouldn’t consider clickbait.

I’m not sure if we’re reading the same article or some parts didn’t load for you, but it seems full of whys:

Why the supermarkets left at the start
Why it’s harder for them to come back
Why certain urban areas have made it more difficult for them to come back (things like zoning)
Why supermarkets themselves may not want to come back (interview with rep and speculation on violence)

Do these not help answer the question?

How long? A week? More?

The only time I think I ever equate the left and the right is that both sides have gotten increasingly tribalist, which this meme ironically proves.

I guess the other time I equate the left and right is in that both sides are very reluctant to hold their politicians accountable for fear of losing to the other side (which is also a result of that tribalism) - even though the left is more willing to say Biden isn’t great, they’re still giving the DNC a free pass because Trump is worse, and rather than recognising that this election is really Biden’s to lose (he just needs to actually tone down on the things that his voter base doesn’t like), they’re blaming the conscientious objectors who choose to vote their conscience for not being a part of their tribe.

The enlightened centrist meme is a similar issue, where acknowledging any of this qualifies you as being outside of either tribe and therefore also a liability in this game. If it helps, I’m not American and can’t vote in your election anyway, so chill out a bit - I’m not losing your election for you (whichever side you’re on).

It can work if the politicians are willing to change to listen to their voter base. Both war parties aren’t single-issue parties. If parties want to win the democratic mandate to enact other policies, they need to play ball with their electorate. That’s the entire point of a democracy - that the electorate gets to be heard. It seems ridiculous that one side is enacting policies that are almost across-the-board unattractive to their demographic, and they’re getting away with it because it can’t be helped, we can’t vote for the other guy, after all. (Obviously the other side is worse, but presumably their side loves their evil policies.)

Your argument basically amounts to “because our political parties will never listen to the people”, which to me is pretty damning, and ensures that the DNC can continue to never listen to their voters. Do I want Trump to win? Absolutely not, even as someone not in the US. But the DNC can’t be allowed to keep looking at these numbers, shrug, and say people will vote for them anyway.

Edit: My main point is that if Biden loses this because people aren’t willing to vote for him, maybe some of the blame should go to the DNC and not just the “stupid voters”?

I think the biggest bugbear for me is always why blame voters voting their conscience and not blame the politicians who refuse to listen to their voter base?

I think the biggest bugbear for me is always why blame voters voting their conscience and not blame the politicians who refuse to listen to their voter base?

Between Biden originally saying that he wasn’t sure if he would run for a second term (in 2019, to be fair), and comments from 2023 that he’s only running because he doesn’t think anyone else can beat Trump, I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think that he would not run just because he’s “the incumbent president”.

I do also buy the argument that people who would vote for Biden wouldn’t suddenly vote for Trump if another Democratic candidate won the primary. In fact, I feel like from discourse on this platform it seems like the opposite is true: some people would vote for Trump simply because the DNC continues to push Biden.

Not sure if I’m not getting something or you’re not getting something, but it doesn’t seem like a non-sequitur. The idea is that if the DNC chooses its candidates, it can force Biden to step down by pressuring him, forcing him to take the route of “heroically stepping down” (publicly) return2ozma predicts will happen.

Now I don’t think it’s likely because Biden seems as establishment as it gets, but saying that the DNC chooses who wins the primary is not a non-sequitur in that scenario.

I don’t know much about how it works, but will Elon “switch it off” the same way that he prevented Starlink from being used by Ukraine in Crimea? If he has the capability to do so but does not choose to do so, that seems a red flag.