Adorable that’s what you think you’re doing, but anybody who looks at your comment history knows different.
Checking yours is how people quickly identify the tankie who hates people for their country of origin.
Running around calling people who disagree with your tankies when you don’t have anything of substance to say really highlights the quality of your intellect. In all our discussions, you’ve only managed to produce a single intelligible comment when you were forced to admit that US is an oligarchic shithole that’s not actually exporting democracy around the world. I don’t hate people for their country of origin, I hate the despotic global empire that your country built and what it’s done to the world.
You’re daft. I wasn’t forced to admit that the US has an oligarchy and you didn’t add one bit of persuasion to my conclusion. I’ve been there for years.
You create an image of the people you talk with and then argue with that image.
There are two things wrong with that. You don’t see the person. And you’re arguing instead of anything useful. Both track back to an unnecessary and unhealthy predilection to combativeness.
You look for fault in others. You look for reasons to feel or be righteous. You look for all this stuff. And sometimes, you find it where it isn’t.
Your style is broken. Your approach is broken. You vision of who you speak with is broken. You’ve forgotten that with very rare exception, all posters are people.
You act like you’re the sole arbiter of a person’s worth and that that always tracks to being on the “right side” of issues you exclusively care about. It’s immature and, honestly, intellectually lazy.
And if the topic of persuasion or decency doesn’t seem substantive to you, then you really need to reflect on why that’s your response.
Let’s add: you responded quickly to the tankie part. What say you about hating people for their country of origin? Because you’ve shown active disdain as soon as you think you know they’re from places.
