▲ 1594 ▼ Psssst (img-9gag-fun.9cache.com) submitted 1 week ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca 575 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] starik@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago (5 children) No true dictatorship permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (4 children) Is that really the best response you have? Is your conviction really that weak? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children) I’m sure you think you could Gish Gallop anyone into thinking the sky is yellow. Only a moron engages with stuff that is just false on its face like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (2 children) I linked Wikipedia. This isn't gish-gallop. If you think Wikipedia is too tankie for you, then I have no idea how you navigate through life, considering it's practically the liberal bible. No, I can't convince anyone that the sky is yellow, but I can convince people to think critically and confront their own brainworms from a lifetime of propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child) You misrepresented the gestalt of the article. You cherry picked. Initially, you lied and claimed the article said the opposite of what it says in its opening paragraphs. I don’t have time for this BS. You fool no one. By the way, your sad little downvote on every one of my comments in this one-on-one conversation just makes you look pathetic. You and I are the only ones reading this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (4 children) Is that really the best response you have? Is your conviction really that weak? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children) I’m sure you think you could Gish Gallop anyone into thinking the sky is yellow. Only a moron engages with stuff that is just false on its face like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (2 children) I linked Wikipedia. This isn't gish-gallop. If you think Wikipedia is too tankie for you, then I have no idea how you navigate through life, considering it's practically the liberal bible. No, I can't convince anyone that the sky is yellow, but I can convince people to think critically and confront their own brainworms from a lifetime of propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child) You misrepresented the gestalt of the article. You cherry picked. Initially, you lied and claimed the article said the opposite of what it says in its opening paragraphs. I don’t have time for this BS. You fool no one. By the way, your sad little downvote on every one of my comments in this one-on-one conversation just makes you look pathetic. You and I are the only ones reading this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starik@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children) I’m sure you think you could Gish Gallop anyone into thinking the sky is yellow. Only a moron engages with stuff that is just false on its face like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (2 children) I linked Wikipedia. This isn't gish-gallop. If you think Wikipedia is too tankie for you, then I have no idea how you navigate through life, considering it's practically the liberal bible. No, I can't convince anyone that the sky is yellow, but I can convince people to think critically and confront their own brainworms from a lifetime of propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child) You misrepresented the gestalt of the article. You cherry picked. Initially, you lied and claimed the article said the opposite of what it says in its opening paragraphs. I don’t have time for this BS. You fool no one. By the way, your sad little downvote on every one of my comments in this one-on-one conversation just makes you look pathetic. You and I are the only ones reading this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (2 children) I linked Wikipedia. This isn't gish-gallop. If you think Wikipedia is too tankie for you, then I have no idea how you navigate through life, considering it's practically the liberal bible. No, I can't convince anyone that the sky is yellow, but I can convince people to think critically and confront their own brainworms from a lifetime of propaganda. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starik@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child) You misrepresented the gestalt of the article. You cherry picked. Initially, you lied and claimed the article said the opposite of what it says in its opening paragraphs. I don’t have time for this BS. You fool no one. By the way, your sad little downvote on every one of my comments in this one-on-one conversation just makes you look pathetic. You and I are the only ones reading this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starik@lemmy.today 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child) You misrepresented the gestalt of the article. You cherry picked. Initially, you lied and claimed the article said the opposite of what it says in its opening paragraphs. I don’t have time for this BS. You fool no one. By the way, your sad little downvote on every one of my comments in this one-on-one conversation just makes you look pathetic. You and I are the only ones reading this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago I used the actually evidence-backed parts of the article. Of course the Wikipedia editors are going to dress it up in a negative way, I figured that was obvious. But looking at what is backed by hard evidence, it supports what I said. As for looking pathetic, I'm not the one that refuses to even engage with the argument at hand and dodges it entirely. Downvotes aren't for disagreement, but for comments that genuinely don't add anything, which has been your last few comments for sure. I know you're fully capable of grappling with what I've said and the evidence provided. I'm not even bringing out textbooks or anything, this is just Wikipedia so it's very short. permalink fedilink source parent
