Weak sauce. I’ve denounced Israel multiple times. I’m dissapointed.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Noooo please. Not that imbecile grifter…

Usually when discussing a heated topic (politics, gun control-take your pick) and trying to discuss the facts of the matter in a neutral manner but the response comes back with every phrase super charged with morally loaded words. Examples of a conversation I had recently (emphasis mine):

sure as hell isn’t PANDERING! What the fuck is wrong with you??

Typical apologist tactic

PRETENDING to care about the brutal slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians

deflecting to your conspiracy theory

shows that YOU don’t care enough about Palestinian lives

It’s very pronounced on this site for some reason. I don’t know why.

Yea, I agree. That’s why I used the word discuss because when the debate-bro mindset kicks in you’re definitely dealing with an angsty teenager (also the constant invocation of logical fallacies).

Me too. But in my view they are not fully developed adults and still have some emotional intelligence left to grow.

For me personally the first tell is when they are morally loading every statement in an argument and are unable to engage with a topic directly. Adults should be able to discuss or debate certain topics on the value of the arguments alone without feeling pressured to include a declarative virtue signal in every clause.

DAE AMERICA LES BAD???

it almost seems you are missing the point on purpose

Welcome to every conversation w @[email protected]

Zerg swarm VS marines

You’re clearly out of your depth. Stop now before you say anything dumber

Edit: for those unaware the United States has one of the hardest paths to immigration/citizenship in the world.

In the dark we’ll take off our clothes And there’ll be placing fingers Through the notches of your spine

–Neutral Milk Hotel, Two Headed Boy

Something is not quite adding up in this story. People are saying he may have been complacent, but for some reason I feel like we’re not getting the full picture. Family or friends didn’t realize he was missing until father’s day? It’s 2024, even if you don’t have cell signal your gps signal stays on. You should be able to at the minimum gauge north, right? Why would you bring scissors on a hike-was he planning to cut snowflakes from leaves? What is going on???

Both are to blame as neither Hamas nor Israel benefits from peace. Before you start shouting “bothsidesing!!!” understand that I am not endorsing Israel. And don’t say “Hamas had no choice! They are oppressed and have to fight back”. That argument doesn’t hold water either as Hamas’s express objective is the elimination of the state of Israel. And before you say “Where does it say that???” I’ll ask that you familiarize yourself with the charter. And before you say “Well they don’t mean elimination of all Jews, just the state” I’ll point you to any Arab nation where Jews live freely and comfortably. And on and on we go.

I don’t agree with the conservatives that defend Rittenhouse. There is really no justification for the actions that led to 3 people dying that day. But I can understand how conservatives reached their conclusions about it. In order to counter their positions, I have to first understand how they reached it. Conservatives will always emphasize the legal arguments in the Rittenhouse incident and dismiss the ethical framework that allowed it to happen it the first place. That’s all.

Going to go walk my dog now.

I don’t really remember any more because I had to translate my position through several iterations since it kept getting twisted. I have to figure out how to make my points more direct and succinct. It seems no matter how much preamble and explanation I offer, my position gets twisted one way or another.

All I’m trying to say is that when we argue with the other side (in this case conservatives that defend Rittenhouse) we should be mindful if we are addressing the ethical argument or the legal argument. Typically, conservatives will overstate the legal argument and dismiss the ethical argument.

If I had an elevator pitch it would be this:

>> It’s helpful to steelman the opposition to be able to refute it better. <<

That’s all. I need to go walk my dog now.

You took my position:

open carry is not uncommon in Wi

and transformed it into

people walking around Kenosha with AR’s is a common sight

These are two completely different statements. Is the opposite of uncommon by default common? Even after I conceded that it would still alarm some people. I don’t get it. Is there a different way I should explain myself? I’m so lost :( What am I doing wrong? Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word uncommon. There has to be a better word. Maybe surprising?

Just engage with the arguments instead of attacking people. Why is that so hard?