It would be a lot easier if you just directly addressed what people say to you.
No, I honestly can’t figure it out. I’m sorry, but I really can’t. None of the questions that I have asked, in my intention or opinion, have been rhetorical.
Then you don't know what a rhetorical question is and I presumably now have to fucking teach you that if I want to have a "normal conversation" with you. Personally, I refuse to believe that you can't figure it out, but I guess we have to do this song and dance - or I can just start writing you off, which I will be doing soon if you continue this shit. A rhetorical question is one in which you are not actually asking for an answer, but suggesting something through a question. I'm not being psychoanalytical here, it's a common way of speaking and it's obvious.
Here's one: “You know why the left isn’t as popular as other philosophies, right? People like you.”
You are not actually asking them to enumerate why the left isn't as popular as other "philosophies" (fucking lol). You answer your question yourself, it could not be more fucking obvious. Now that you have learned information taught to fifth graders - or, more accurately, have been forced to contend with a bad habit that you'd rather not honestly deal with - you can acknowledge this, correct? I won't hold my breath.
But instead you personally attack me as if I’m on the same level as you and “should know better”. I don’t know better, ok? I don’t know better. I’m just trying here. I’m trying, and all I’m getting is shit on and insulted.
I've stated exactly what you need to do to demonstrate good faith and humility and you've repeatedly ignored it and deflected and made up stories about things I didn't ask for and how ridiculous I am for suggesting it. I've had numerous bad faith interactions with you where, rather than actually try to understand what is happening, you just fight and push back and make excuses. No matter how many times you say, "no I'm a good boy I didn't mean it, honest", you will have to deal with the fact that you've acted like a pissbaby and that yes, you should fucking know better, or more accurately, be able to acknowledge it when it's pointed out to you five, ten, fifteen, twenty times by other people you claim to be associated with.
Tell me, specifically, what I am incorrect about.
I have done so repeatedly, beginning with your equivocation on communism. It's not my fault that you deflected and forgot. Go look it up and tell me. I shouldn't have to organize this conversation, you should be able to honestly contend with what people say when they say it.
Stop insulting me personally, and just tell me what you think I’m wrong about!
You will continue to get berated so long as you act like a pissbaby.
I would 100% admit to EVERY error I’ve ever made, especially if the error was specifically pointed out to me so that I could change! This is exhausting.
Except you literally did the exact opposite at every step in this conversation where you should have. You did it with me, you did it with everyone else. When I say you lied about something or deflected, that's you avoiding admitting an error. It's a coping mechanism. Deal with that shit and stop making excuses. You have acknowledged exactly zero errors in this back-and-forth. You haven't even done the typical ego-serving thing of admitting to one error and denying the general sense of making serial errors as a matter of a deeper problem (yet), which would usually come next. This is all despite you repeatedly telling little stories to avoid what I say, dropping absurd little straw men/rhetorical questions, and generally being full of shit on topic where you'd like to fling shit at others.
[A series of asinine questions feigning incompetence]
I have been very clear and specific in my criticisms. If you are honestly confused, well fuck that sucks for you you made your own fucking bed and have to sleep in it. Maybe stop deflecting shit and you'd remember what we're talking about. I've also made it easy for you by using operational words like "lie", "make shit up", and "straw man".
But honestly, you can figure out these very basic parts of having a conversation yourself. You are a big boy with a browser and a search function and you can do the basic work of remembering criticisms I've repeated to you three or four times.
Example: "Not sure where I straw-manned you. Can you quote that for me? I’ll gladly discuss that with you.". No, that's your job. I was very clear on when this happened. Go find the quote and show it to us, then explain how your response captures my position.
The first one about nationalized energy - I honestly want to know why ANY country would choose not to nationalize their essential services. Do you know why? I’d like to know.
The fact that you couldn't figure out that, "I thought this was a communist country??" is the rhetorical question is pretty great. Keep posting your Ls, 40-year-old-who-doesn't-know-what-a-rhetorical-question-is. Pretty funny that you chose basic conversational incompetence as your general "out".
The second one - sure, maybe you can consider that rhetorical, but I answered it myself. It’s more a “figure of speech” than an actual rhetorical question. It’s just a more creative way of saying “leftist thought isn’t catching on because apparently there are many leftist assholes”.
It is a rhetorical question full-stop, and obviously so. Look at how you deny the obvious and squirm and torture yourself to avoid acknowledging something so trivial. You will clearly not be satisfied until I teach you remedial fucking English, dying on this hill lest someone else be correct that you, gasp, asked rhetorical questions.
Here's an easy way for you or any 10-year-old to know if a question is rhetorical: does it expect an actual, direct answer? If no, it's rhetorical. Gold star. Pizza party if you get five of them right.
I don’t have the energy. Sorry, but I don’t. This is fucking exhausting.
Great, so you tired yourself out by acting in bad faith so long that you've forgotten what anyone is talking about, all you can do is make knee-jerk claims like, "no you do it too probably" and "what straw men?" as if I hadn't specifically told you. I am not going to pick up that slack for you, so you can fuck off if you're not going to.
I really thought that this was a community where we could have discussions. I didn’t realize I had to major in Marxism to participate in this website.
Majoring in Marxism is when you spend 10 minutes learning the senses of a word using Google.
Look at this melodramatic pissbaby response that amounts to, you guessed it: a fucking straw man. Textbook example. Contend with this realization at your leisure, or, as seems to be the case, by deflecting from it and forgetting what I'm talking about.
Ok, let’s take the very definition of the word “Communism”:
There's only one definition? Interesting. Pretty sure I said "senses". If you don't know what I mean by that, you can feel free to ask, but I didn't know that "senses of a word" was a particularly academic term.
Last time I looked at China, they had billionaires. Last time I looked at China, the Means of Production were controlled by those billionaires. Last time I looked at China, they had social classes, money, and a huge state apparatus.
Hey look you made the same error again. You seem proud of it, lol.
Sorry, no cigar. You can do it, though, I believe in you! Keep reading! Keep thinking about the question of what things get called communist!
Am I incorrect on any of those points?
You're committing the fallacy of equivocation because you don't know the ways in which the term is used beyond the one sense you're familiar with. In this ignorance, you've decided that only that sense really exists so there is a contradiction. The idea that language has been used in other ways is somehow less plausible to you than those sneaky commie Asiatics knowing more about this than you do.
lol buddy I'm laughing at you, hard to be calmer than having a hearty chuckle at the :LIB: that thinks they're a leftist and is so tied up in their own ego that they can't admit they asked rhetorical questions.
It wasn't a figure of speech either, lol. Keep taking those Ls on gradeschool English, lib.
You wouldn't dig these holes if you were honest early and often. A tip for your mental health in the future, because it probably doesn't feel good to commit to illiteracy rather than admit fault.
It would be a lot easier if you just directly addressed what people say to you.
Then you don't know what a rhetorical question is and I presumably now have to fucking teach you that if I want to have a "normal conversation" with you. Personally, I refuse to believe that you can't figure it out, but I guess we have to do this song and dance - or I can just start writing you off, which I will be doing soon if you continue this shit. A rhetorical question is one in which you are not actually asking for an answer, but suggesting something through a question. I'm not being psychoanalytical here, it's a common way of speaking and it's obvious.
Here's one: “You know why the left isn’t as popular as other philosophies, right? People like you.”
You are not actually asking them to enumerate why the left isn't as popular as other "philosophies" (fucking lol). You answer your question yourself, it could not be more fucking obvious. Now that you have learned information taught to fifth graders - or, more accurately, have been forced to contend with a bad habit that you'd rather not honestly deal with - you can acknowledge this, correct? I won't hold my breath.
I've stated exactly what you need to do to demonstrate good faith and humility and you've repeatedly ignored it and deflected and made up stories about things I didn't ask for and how ridiculous I am for suggesting it. I've had numerous bad faith interactions with you where, rather than actually try to understand what is happening, you just fight and push back and make excuses. No matter how many times you say, "no I'm a good boy I didn't mean it, honest", you will have to deal with the fact that you've acted like a pissbaby and that yes, you should fucking know better, or more accurately, be able to acknowledge it when it's pointed out to you five, ten, fifteen, twenty times by other people you claim to be associated with.
I have done so repeatedly, beginning with your equivocation on communism. It's not my fault that you deflected and forgot. Go look it up and tell me. I shouldn't have to organize this conversation, you should be able to honestly contend with what people say when they say it.
You will continue to get berated so long as you act like a pissbaby.
Except you literally did the exact opposite at every step in this conversation where you should have. You did it with me, you did it with everyone else. When I say you lied about something or deflected, that's you avoiding admitting an error. It's a coping mechanism. Deal with that shit and stop making excuses. You have acknowledged exactly zero errors in this back-and-forth. You haven't even done the typical ego-serving thing of admitting to one error and denying the general sense of making serial errors as a matter of a deeper problem (yet), which would usually come next. This is all despite you repeatedly telling little stories to avoid what I say, dropping absurd little straw men/rhetorical questions, and generally being full of shit on topic where you'd like to fling shit at others.
I have been very clear and specific in my criticisms. If you are honestly confused, well fuck that sucks for you you made your own fucking bed and have to sleep in it. Maybe stop deflecting shit and you'd remember what we're talking about. I've also made it easy for you by using operational words like "lie", "make shit up", and "straw man".
But honestly, you can figure out these very basic parts of having a conversation yourself. You are a big boy with a browser and a search function and you can do the basic work of remembering criticisms I've repeated to you three or four times.
Example: "Not sure where I straw-manned you. Can you quote that for me? I’ll gladly discuss that with you.". No, that's your job. I was very clear on when this happened. Go find the quote and show it to us, then explain how your response captures my position.
The fact that you couldn't figure out that, "I thought this was a communist country??" is the rhetorical question is pretty great. Keep posting your Ls, 40-year-old-who-doesn't-know-what-a-rhetorical-question-is. Pretty funny that you chose basic conversational incompetence as your general "out".
It is a rhetorical question full-stop, and obviously so. Look at how you deny the obvious and squirm and torture yourself to avoid acknowledging something so trivial. You will clearly not be satisfied until I teach you remedial fucking English, dying on this hill lest someone else be correct that you, gasp, asked rhetorical questions.
Here's an easy way for you or any 10-year-old to know if a question is rhetorical: does it expect an actual, direct answer? If no, it's rhetorical. Gold star. Pizza party if you get five of them right.
Great, so you tired yourself out by acting in bad faith so long that you've forgotten what anyone is talking about, all you can do is make knee-jerk claims like, "no you do it too probably" and "what straw men?" as if I hadn't specifically told you. I am not going to pick up that slack for you, so you can fuck off if you're not going to.
Majoring in Marxism is when you spend 10 minutes learning the senses of a word using Google.
Look at this melodramatic pissbaby response that amounts to, you guessed it: a fucking straw man. Textbook example. Contend with this realization at your leisure, or, as seems to be the case, by deflecting from it and forgetting what I'm talking about.
There's only one definition? Interesting. Pretty sure I said "senses". If you don't know what I mean by that, you can feel free to ask, but I didn't know that "senses of a word" was a particularly academic term.
Hey look you made the same error again. You seem proud of it, lol.
Sorry, no cigar. You can do it, though, I believe in you! Keep reading! Keep thinking about the question of what things get called communist!
You're committing the fallacy of equivocation because you don't know the ways in which the term is used beyond the one sense you're familiar with. In this ignorance, you've decided that only that sense really exists so there is a contradiction. The idea that language has been used in other ways is somehow less plausible to you than those sneaky commie Asiatics knowing more about this than you do.
Removed by mod
lol buddy I'm laughing at you, hard to be calmer than having a hearty chuckle at the :LIB: that thinks they're a leftist and is so tied up in their own ego that they can't admit they asked rhetorical questions.
Removed by mod
It wasn't a figure of speech either, lol. Keep taking those Ls on gradeschool English, lib.
You wouldn't dig these holes if you were honest early and often. A tip for your mental health in the future, because it probably doesn't feel good to commit to illiteracy rather than admit fault.