|
Trump is a front-man for Kushner; the former keeps the crowds distracted while the later does what ever he wants.
- the withdrawal from the iranian pact, was Kushner
- the trade war with China, was Kushner
- the almost Venezuela, was Kushner
- the disappearance of Palestina/palestinian as a notion, concept, was Kushner; he literally offered a bribe of ~60bil $(pledged in investments) so that no one would speak of palestinians ever again.
pretty much everything geopolitical is Kushners' doing and Trump just gets to do some business/deals on the side.
|
On August 27 2019 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 15:06 Excludos wrote:On August 27 2019 08:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 27 2019 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just surprises me how much mileage you guys can get out of variations of "trump and his supporters are stupid and hopeless" And yet he keeps posting stupid shit on twitter as if.... as if... That's exactly how he wants people to react... Or maybe it's as if... As if... He's actually stupid... Occam's razor people. It's naive to think Trump is playing some kind of 4D chess by making people think he's stupid. It's much more likely that he's just exactly that. It can be both. Not that it's especially complex, but his strategy is to provoke the conflict, not convince people or mediate.
I agree with GH here. We all know Trump writes stupid shit on twitter constantly. And yet all we talk about is Trump writing stupid shit. Not the evil shit his administration is doing. So it kind of works. People are far more interested in the latest "Trump wrote a stupid" gossip than in actual politics. And i know it is fun. It feels good coming in with another smart quip as to how stupid the thing Trump wrote this time is (and i am pretty certain that i am guilty of this, too).
And yet it still works as a distraction. I don't know if that is by design or not (and that isn't actually that important), but the constant chain of Trump bullshit keeps people from talking about politics or...anything but Trump bullshit. Which is not a good thing.
|
Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation?
The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.
It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction?
|
No one reports lefty shitposts so they don't get actioned even when it's warranted.
|
United States42959 Posts
On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: Show nested quote +We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction?
There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard.
|
On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard.
"punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group?
Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.
|
United States42959 Posts
On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.
Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default.
Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you?
|
On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.
There’s no such thing as freedom of speech without consequences. I haven’t read grumbels post but if you’re trying to equate being shunned and mocked vs being marginalized then you need to relook at your statement.
|
On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default. Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you?
Agreed. There are some political differences that i can accept in other people and still be friends with them and invite them to my house, and some i cannot. As an extreme example that is not on the right, if someone were to claim that the soviet union under Stalin was totally amazing, and we should institute a similar system here (and was actually serious about that), i probably wouldn't want to associate with that person.
You might see this as a punishment, but i get to choose who i am friends with, and who i want to associate with. And if a lot of people think that your political views are so unacceptable that they don't want to be around you, maybe you should reevaluate your political beliefs instead of trying to force them to still invite you to their parties? Or go to other parties?
|
On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default. Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you?
Jesus kwark calm down why do you have to make this so personal? Grumbles is the one making broad statements about social attacks based on political opinions not me.
Do you really need me to define what punitive means? It's not a long post and if you really don't understand what those words mean then the rest of the post, being you know a direct response to those words, doesn't work to discuss them. This being the feedback thread we're not discussing if we agree with grumbles we're talking a out if it compares to what xdaunt wss banned for.
|
It does not compare to what xDaunt was banned for.
|
United States42959 Posts
On September 05 2019 20:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default. Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you? Jesus kwark calm down why do you have to make this so personal? Grumbles is the one making broad statements about social attacks based on political opinions not me. Do you really need me to define what punitive means? It's not a long post and if you really don't understand what those words mean then the rest of the post, being you know a direct response to those words, doesn't work to discuss them. This being the feedback thread we're not discussing if we agree with grumbles we're talking a out if it compares to what xdaunt wss banned for.
I know what the words mean. It’s just your position doesn’t make sense based on what the words mean because you’re treating social consequences as an imposed punishment. That’s why I politely asked you to provide your definition instead of just calling you a dumbass for saying something that sounds dumb based on the commonly used definitions.
|
On September 05 2019 22:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 20:35 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default. Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you? Jesus kwark calm down why do you have to make this so personal? Grumbles is the one making broad statements about social attacks based on political opinions not me. Do you really need me to define what punitive means? It's not a long post and if you really don't understand what those words mean then the rest of the post, being you know a direct response to those words, doesn't work to discuss them. This being the feedback thread we're not discussing if we agree with grumbles we're talking a out if it compares to what xdaunt wss banned for. I know what the words mean. It’s just your position doesn’t make sense based on what the words mean because you’re treating social consequences as an imposed punishment. That’s why I politely asked you to provide your definition instead of just calling you a dumbass for saying something that sounds dumb based on the commonly used definitions.
Nevermind
|
Come on now, we all know that xdaunt got permed for being racist when Trump decided to be racist, and then he sent an unfavourable PM.
|
On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.
I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream.
|
On September 06 2019 23:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream.
The term "blacklist" in US vernacular comes from the blacklisting of strikers, union supporters, and later communists. When you say " more mainstream" do you just mean "used against conservatives/people on the right"?
|
|
|
On September 07 2019 06:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2019 23:15 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream. what is your expectation of mods reaction when you post so passive aggressive like this? Do you think this is a good technique to get people to act how you would prefer or do you find it just makes them angry?
I read it as a resignation to the status quo more so than having any imaginations of possible change as a result of the post.
TeamLiquid has never been nor claimed to be a democracy - "it's our house," so Kwark can call people dumbasses and argue moderation based on his beliefs. Sometimes mods disagree on things and then they discuss. I doubt this is such a case, and I don't think Danglars believed it to be either. He's just voicing his opinion.
|
United States42959 Posts
On September 07 2019 07:08 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2019 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On September 06 2019 23:15 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream. what is your expectation of mods reaction when you post so passive aggressive like this? Do you think this is a good technique to get people to act how you would prefer or do you find it just makes them angry? I read it as a resignation to the status quo more so than having any imaginations of possible change as a result of the post. TeamLiquid has never been nor claimed to be a democracy - "it's our house," so Kwark can call people dumbasses and argue moderation based on his beliefs. Sometimes mods disagree on things and then they discuss. I doubt this is such a case, and I don't think Danglars believed it to be either. He's just voicing his opinion.
You’re misrepresenting me pretty extensively here. He said something that sounded dumb but because I do not believe him to be dumb I concluded that I was not correctly understanding his point. This is called the benefit of the doubt. I then asked him to explain what he meant by the term he used. He then chose to condescendingly tell me that punitive wasn’t a long word and that I didn’t need him to tell me what it meant. He jumped in the shit and got muddy.
I also don’t moderate anyone.
|
On September 07 2019 07:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2019 07:08 Jealous wrote:On September 07 2019 06:49 JimmiC wrote:On September 06 2019 23:15 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation? The ban notice said: We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction? There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard. "punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group? Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias. I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream. what is your expectation of mods reaction when you post so passive aggressive like this? Do you think this is a good technique to get people to act how you would prefer or do you find it just makes them angry? I read it as a resignation to the status quo more so than having any imaginations of possible change as a result of the post. TeamLiquid has never been nor claimed to be a democracy - "it's our house," so Kwark can call people dumbasses and argue moderation based on his beliefs. Sometimes mods disagree on things and then they discuss. I doubt this is such a case, and I don't think Danglars believed it to be either. He's just voicing his opinion. You’re misrepresenting me pretty extensively here. He said something that sounded dumb but because I do not believe him to be dumb I concluded that I was not correctly understanding his point. This is called the benefit of the doubt. I then asked him to explain what he meant by the term he used. He then chose to condescendingly tell me that punitive wasn’t a long word and that I didn’t need him to tell me what it meant. He jumped in the shit and got muddy. I also don’t moderate anyone.
But you can tho. I wasn't filing a complaint, I was saying how it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
