17 Years Ago Today: "I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Only some of them.
Maybe, but in this case the point was not even to be obnoxious. Also, I was completely right. It sounded exactly like BLM apologia.
Most importantly, one of the most hated ones.
Sorry lets put it in a way you seem to think is valid.
Sounds like you're a SJW tumor. Since you seem to think just labelling people you don't like with heavy labels is a good way to make a point.
You'd fit right in with them, using your complete ignorance of the topic and homing in on one specific word devoid of context to attack someone.
Shadi? Well, he hated me as well, and then he suddenly liked me, and then he suddenly hated me again.
I think it's quite a good thing to hold up a mirror to people.
Whether I am completely ignorant of the topic or not is not really the issue here. It in no way invalidates my original point. That entire comment could be lifted and posted in a different thread about BLM. Vapid appeals to 'context' are usually just special pleading, as they seem to be in this case.
Like I told the other guy, what I objected to was the unconditional approval of property destruction as 'just' being about property. That is unacceptable. He later said that he didn't mean it that way, and that was more acceptable.
Except you're not. You are just aggressively attacking them, putting them immediately on the defensive and accomplishing nothing. There are ways to accomplish that without being obnoxious that are actually quite effective.
A lesson we all spent an entire "Summit" screaming at those ol' Mods about if you recall.
Except you were the one entirely ignorant of the context, unlike almost everyone else in the discussion. The context massively changes what is being praised.
Its not "special pleading," its a under-qualified phrase that everyone who knows the story understands without 5 qualifiers anyway. The kind of thing that works in niche tiny communities like this, instead of a shitbox like reddit where everyone is so paranoid about being "lifted and posted in a different thread about BLM."
He's doing what all the kia shill mods do - they claim something that isnt there, then argue "on a technicality" thats irrelevant to the discussion. trannnies cant hold a single legit argument to save their sex change. I just remembered this thread again and unsurprised to see him acting like the jannies on halfkia do. I think he is a trannie infiltrator. check his other comments on the thread too. this is exactly how all the trannie jannies on reddit operate.
I am aware. But I'm not always looking for what is most persuasive to the people who make claims that I find to be ridiculous.
It is special pleading. When you say that it's OK because it's 'just' property destruction, how am I supposed to read it, other than what it says? Am I supposed to imagine some sort of qualifiers that aren't there, but that I assume should be there? Based on what?