People say things online because the anonymity provides them cover to say what they truly feel. That's why anonymity is precious when society becomes tyrannical and despotic toward rationality and truth. But, it also allows people to express their true feelings, regardless of context or circumstance.
Why was u/Joe_Shmo 's comment cringe? How is it virtue signaling? Why is to make people clap like seals? Do we not seek agreement and community with people who are like us, and espouse the truth to those that need to hear it? Does upvoting people you agree with count as "clapping like seals"? Why does nobody like him? What topic was he shoehorning into the conversation? I looked through his profile. He's not a single issue user, and his criticism of Trump and Palantir is legitimate.
You're the one that seems incredibly biased against that particular user, and it bleeds through in what you wrote. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with his comment either, except if they were a Trump sycophant. If you're a Christian and view Trump with even a shred of critical thought, you should agree with him. Trump isn't perfect, and he's made tons of mistakes, and is in the midst of numerous mistakes. And I remember being in a debate with you previously about the release of the Epstein files (or lack thereof), and how it shines an incredibly negative light on Trump, and you actively defended him. You're not exactly unbiased here.
That's why anonymity is precious when society becomes tyrannical and despotic toward rationality and truth
It is important and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. But, much like alcohol before it, saying "your truth without inhibitions" isn't always your actual truth. Its marred by factors, and is not always what you truly feel when you actually sit and think about it.
In simplest cases, the echo chamber. With it, you will say things you don't entirely believe out of fear of being against the grain, even if completely anonymous without any actual consequence. That's human nature. Same with the reversal where you say things to fit in better and get those precious dopamine hits from upvotes. Not to mention being surrounded by people gives immense social pressure in this regard regardless on if dissenting opinions are welcome, compared to simple 1v1 conversations.
That's without even getting into the murky waters that real life people actually are representing themselves, while online you can just say shit to say it for the fun of it or just to get it out of your system. Unless you think every person who ever said nigger on CoD was making a hard stance on racism.
Why was u/Joe_Shmo 's comment cringe? How is it virtue signaling?
Because it jammed a completely unrelated topic into a different one with the worst non-sequitur I've seen in a while, seemingly just to say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS."
Why does nobody like him?
Said nothing of the sort, said if he acted like that in public then nobody would. Because its an insufferable trait to have to simply throw Jesus into a conversation that isn't related to him. We've all met that person and if you haven't you should go to more churches.
You're the one that seems incredibly biased against that particular user
I know nothing about him, his name or his history. This is the first time I even register reading his name. And by the weekend if I see him elsewhere I won't remember he said this to color my thoughts about him. Good try though.
except if they were a Trump sycophant
I see why you see sycophants everywhere. You've lowered the bar so deep that its "doesn't agree with me" and "doesn't immediately doomer about him." I can disagree with his comment because I'm capable of the nuance necessary to support someone without worshiping them like a messiah.
Trump isn't perfect, and he's made tons of mistakes, and is in the midst of numerous mistakes
He isn't even close to perfect. He is a Jew loving retard to a fault, somehow finds the most retarded people possible to appoint more than half the time, and isn't a quarter the draconian tyrant he needs to be to actually accomplish any of the goals people want.
Should I put that disclaimer before every comment about him lest I receive your swift judgement of sycophancy?
It is important and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. But, much like alcohol before it, saying "your truth without inhibitions" isn't always your actual truth. Its marred by factors, and is not always what you truly feel when you actually sit and think about it.
You're comparing internet anonymity to drunkenness? One enables a person to say something free of consequence. The other is altering people's brain chemistry to say things they normally wouldn't.
In simplest cases, the echo chamber. With it, you will say things you don't entirely believe out of fear of being against the grain, even if completely anonymous without any actual consequence. That's human nature. Same with the reversal where you say things to fit in better and get those precious dopamine hits from upvotes. Not to mention being surrounded by people gives immense social pressure in this regard regardless on if dissenting opinions are welcome, compared to simple 1v1 conversations.
I agree with this for the most part, but it doesn't really prove either side true or false definitively. People, regardless of context, always seek out people that are like them and believe like they do. All groups are technically "echo chambers" to some degree, along the lines of what they agree upon as a group. People are less likely to go against the grain to avoid being ostracized by the group, which in the olden days amounted to expulsion and death in the wilderness. People are less likely to go against the grain, or vociferously disagree with something in a group, if the disagreement is small, if the group is healthy, and if the person doesn't want to fracture the group.
None of those variables hold true for most modern disagreements. Out problems are systemic, foundational, and deadly, and most groups are dysgenic, apathetic, fractured, atomized, and unhealthy. Given the circumstances of the modern world, anonymity still provides useful cover for people to speak the truth without consequence. Upvotes and downvotes are the most mild form of reward and consequence given to speech, in the entirety of human history, considering the current consequences for speaking wrongthink in person lead to being unpersoned by friends, family, and society, getting doxxed, being fired, getting debanked, being assaulted, and being murdered. The disparity is so extreme as to prove the point I was making.
That's without even getting into the murky waters that real life people actually are representing themselves, while online you can just say shit to say it for the fun of it or just to get it out of your system. Unless you think every person who ever said nigger on CoD was making a hard stance on racism.
You're trying to use the exception to disprove the rule. It doesn't work like that. There are definitely people who intentionally troll others online, and people do the same in real life with practical jokes or just being an asshole. But, that doesn't mean all speech is like that, or the majority of speech is like that. I agree, however, that many people pretend to be things they're not, just to maintain their position within whatever groups they occupy. Modernity is replete with examples, though, proving how unhealthy that behavior is when the groups no longer function on behalf of the people and for their good. Modern society is decaying, degenerate, dysgenic, corrupt, and on the verge of collapse. People need outlets to express the truth, free from the consequences of the tyranny and insanity we're living in.
As the world makes less and less sense, as things get worse, as we drift further from truth, more and more people will speak out against the falsehoods and lies, even if it means being punished, being ostracized, fracturing the groups they're a part of, going against the grain, or popping the false consensus "echo chamber".
Because it jammed a completely unrelated topic into a different one with the worst non-sequitur I've seen in a while, seemingly just to say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS."
What a strange objection. Are you aware of how insanely tangential most discussions are, online and in real life? Many conversations can end up on the other side of the known universe in just a few minutes or a few replies. Are you critical of all tangents in conversation, or just the one where this anon brought up Jesus? If you're not, then you're being a hypocrite. Out of curiosity, what's your religion? I assume you're not critical of other tangents in other conversations, so I must assume you're latching onto any criticism you can of Joe_Shmo, in a veiled attempt to undercut him.
If you're still unaware, after I brought it up, Joe_Shmo was criticizing Trump and his fanbase, for idolatry. The criticism is relevant to the discussion at hand, considering what Trump has been doing, and how his fanbase react to any negative comment about him. This very thread proves the point.
Said nothing of the sort, said if he acted like that in public then nobody would. Because its an insufferable trait to have to simply throw Jesus into a conversation that isn't related to him. We've all met that person and if you haven't you should go to more churches.
It was a safe assumption given what you said here:
And if he does, nobody likes him for being cringe and annoying for shoehorning it in even if they agree with him.
Since he "shoehorned" Jesus into the discussion here, you're making the explicit claim that "nobody likes him" for "bring cringe". You're trying to pass your own feelings onto everyone else here, to present a false popularity/consensus, when in reality you can only speak for your feelings. Don't presume to speak for others, and don't manipulate conversations like that to try and prop up your own position. It's incredibly manipulative, dishonest, presumptive, and fallacious.
With regard to bringing up Jesus, I hang out with a lot of Christians, and I have my entire life, and very very few of them any more bring up Jesus in conversation, because they've been so thoroughly mocked, attacked, and degraded. The entirety of Christianity has been under constant assault by TPTB and their controlled institutions for decades. I'd rather people bring up Jesus, discuss the Bible, and profess their faith more openly, not less. We've seen the direct correlative consequences of the decline of Christianity in the West, and the downfall of the West, in just 100 years.
I know nothing about him, his name or his history. This is the first time I even register reading his name. And by the weekend if I see him elsewhere I won't remember he said this to color my thoughts about him. Good try though.
Fair enough. I suppose it's just your visible hatred of this particular tangent, of him bringing up Jesus into the discussion to criticize Trump and his sycophants, that seems to have roused your ire.
I see why you see sycophants everywhere. You've lowered the bar so deep that its "doesn't agree with me" and "doesn't immediately doomer about him." I can disagree with his comment because I'm capable of the nuance necessary to support someone without worshiping them like a messiah.
Ahhhh okay. You're now admitting that it was Joe_Shmo's criticism of Trump that you didn't like.
Feel free to peruse my profile. I'm extremely hesitant to paint things in black and white, to ignore all nuance and subtlety, to not explain it, acknowledge it, or explore it, except if the truth is obvious and plain. I call them sycophants because that's exactly how they act. Not all Trump supporters, but many. There is clearly a distinction, but the criticism of their behavior still stands. Your own defense of Trump is proof of this, even in this conversation. You're twisting and manipulating reality, flat out denying out in the open behavior of millions of Trump supports, all over many platforms and in real life, you're using fallacious arguments, casting your own feelings onto others to try to prove a false consensus (appeals to popularity are logical fallacies), and trying to hide behind carefully worded arguments to hide your true motive. If that's not sycophantic behavior in a vain attempt to protect Trump from the evil criticisms levied against him, I don't know what is.
He isn't even close to perfect. He is a Jew loving retard to a fault, somehow finds the most retarded people possible to appoint more than half the time, and isn't a quarter the draconian tyrant he needs to be to actually accomplish any of the goals people want.
On that, I agree. I have a lot more criticisms of him, though. I warned people, explicitly, here, elsewhere, and in real life, that he's corrupt and a danger, and that we must break free of the false dichotomy political bullshit we're being offered, and that all of his "gifts" he would offer would come at a terrible price, or be blown out of proportion to manipulate his fanbase, which would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. The one prediction I made that was false, was that I thought Trump's presidency would neuter the dissident right, the people who escaped the false dichotomy political plantation (Democrat vs Republican), and stop the proliferation of verboten red pills (jews and race realism). On the contrary, I'm very happy to be wrong about that, as it seems Trump's presidency, due precisely to his fellatio of jews, has exploded verboten discussion.
Should I put that disclaimer before every comment about him lest I receive your swift judgement of sycophancy?
It's sometimes necessary, as I do it myself in certain audiences to point to where I come from. It's not always necessary, though. However, I've seen too many comments from you subversively and slyly trying to defend Trump to ignore your obvious motives. This entire conversation is further proof of that observation.
I'm curious, what would Trump have to do for you to stop defending him, and undercut anyone criticizing Trump? I don't ask this in jest, I'm earnestly curious. What line would Trump have to cross, explicitly?
You're comparing internet anonymity to drunkenness?
No, comparing a historical idea people have used (that being drunk makes you say what you really feel) to the modern anonymity you claim is doing the same.
But, to simplify my point better now with a good night's rest. Anonymity grants them the ability to say their truth, but that doesn't mean most people will take it. And all the various factors I outlined are just some of the reasons why that might be the case.
Are you critical of all tangents in conversation
I generally call out cringe when I see it and if I feel up for the argument. If you want to go back like a year or so you can see me call out Lethn dozens of times for it, or Telia earlier this year, or even Imp way back for shoving women in to everything hamfistedly. And Antonio and Gitz for being retarded about their attempts to counter the anti-Jew posters, sometimes in the same week as attacking those same guys for being retarded in how they do things! Almost like its about the method in which the speech is happening instead of the content, usually in an attempt to help someone be more convincing of their push or to simply make fun of them for my own amusement.
Out of curiosity, what's your religion?
The same Jesus loving one as he and I assume you, my friend. Not much for specific denominations because of the baggage associated with the labels of them, but raised as both Southern Baptist and Catholic (long story). Just because I criticize how someone goes about their religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in it.
For example, our old boy Imp used to come to me on reddit as a "seasoned, senior anti-feminist/misogynist." He and I share enough in regards to gender politics to be almost twins, yet I was constantly calling him cringe, stupid, and other things.
in a veiled attempt to undercut him.
I called a sentence he said out. That's all. Followed by an if in regards to dealing with that in person being an unlikeable trait. You keep trying to assign a much larger conspiracy at play here.
In fact, if you didn't feel compelled to repeat his full name over and over, I'd have forgotten it by now.
You're now admitting that it
Nope, I replied to you and not him for a reason. I offered a gentle disagreement on the amount of obsessive sycophants Trump has, and then used the "I talk to people in real life, not social media" as my example. I used his comment as a small example of something that is much more acceptable online than it is in real life discussions. You latched onto it as indicative of some greater plot.
I call them sycophants because that's exactly how they act
And they no doubt exist. My only offering was that I see people complain about it more than I encounter the very thing being complained about. The meme of it might outstrip the reality.
And then an additional offering of maybe its the manner in which you, or some other people, talk to them that makes them close ranks so hard and seem so insane. Which considering how you keep trying to accuse me of all sorts of hyperbolic things simply for the crime of calling something cringe and having a minor disagreement on how common something is, I now believe that is very much the case.
It is very ironic that you call yourself extremely hesitant to paint things in black and white, yet you have decided because I disagreed with you on a few topics I must be a sycophant playing some game to mess with the narrative and manipulate people.
I have a lot more criticisms of him, though
I do as well, that was just a small generalized list. His entire first term was a fucking failure in all ways except stopping Hillary from getting in, and he did that day one. Half if not more of all the Covid consequences were set to happen because of him, and not Biden. The Vaxx was his Warpspeed baby after all.
what would Trump have to do
When he falls below my expectations. Despite what you seem to have conjured, my expectations for him were and are low and are based entirely on relativity to the comparison. As in, is he doing something worse than Kamala/Hillary/Biden would have in the same position. Or even, is he doing something that I don't just expect baseline from every politician period. I expected him to be pro-Jew, so I don't get upset that he does exactly that even if I dislike it heavily. I expected him to be anti-immigration and he has in many avenues exceeded my expectations there in that I can physically see less illegals out and about in my town already (though no doubt mostly in hiding after a few raids), though some comments he has made have my concerned he will fuck that up in some manners regarding the Jeets and the Chinese. The Palantir shit seems all bad, and I have nothing further to add on that. The Middle East situation is a bumblefuck waiting to get worse that he keeps kicking, though he has done decently on that bumblefuck in the past.
And it needs actual time to come to fruition. This is important, because everyday we are bombarded with claims and info about him that sounds horrific, and then it either never happens or turns out to be not exactly as proscribed. This is why I "undercut" criticism so much, because doomers want you to "sell sell sell" the moment the stock dips at all instead of actually letting the sky fall just a little before freaking the fuck out. And sometimes I simply enjoy discussing things with someone who has an opposing point of view than me, even if I don't change my point of view on it. Arguing has more benefit than simply changing minds, it can sharpen your perspective and teach you new things, which is what most of my "undercuts" accomplish. I learn a lot during them, even if they usually don't change a thing.
People say things online because the anonymity provides them cover to say what they truly feel. That's why anonymity is precious when society becomes tyrannical and despotic toward rationality and truth. But, it also allows people to express their true feelings, regardless of context or circumstance.
Why was u/Joe_Shmo 's comment cringe? How is it virtue signaling? Why is to make people clap like seals? Do we not seek agreement and community with people who are like us, and espouse the truth to those that need to hear it? Does upvoting people you agree with count as "clapping like seals"? Why does nobody like him? What topic was he shoehorning into the conversation? I looked through his profile. He's not a single issue user, and his criticism of Trump and Palantir is legitimate.
You're the one that seems incredibly biased against that particular user, and it bleeds through in what you wrote. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with his comment either, except if they were a Trump sycophant. If you're a Christian and view Trump with even a shred of critical thought, you should agree with him. Trump isn't perfect, and he's made tons of mistakes, and is in the midst of numerous mistakes. And I remember being in a debate with you previously about the release of the Epstein files (or lack thereof), and how it shines an incredibly negative light on Trump, and you actively defended him. You're not exactly unbiased here.
It is important and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. But, much like alcohol before it, saying "your truth without inhibitions" isn't always your actual truth. Its marred by factors, and is not always what you truly feel when you actually sit and think about it.
In simplest cases, the echo chamber. With it, you will say things you don't entirely believe out of fear of being against the grain, even if completely anonymous without any actual consequence. That's human nature. Same with the reversal where you say things to fit in better and get those precious dopamine hits from upvotes. Not to mention being surrounded by people gives immense social pressure in this regard regardless on if dissenting opinions are welcome, compared to simple 1v1 conversations.
That's without even getting into the murky waters that real life people actually are representing themselves, while online you can just say shit to say it for the fun of it or just to get it out of your system. Unless you think every person who ever said nigger on CoD was making a hard stance on racism.
Because it jammed a completely unrelated topic into a different one with the worst non-sequitur I've seen in a while, seemingly just to say "I BELIEVE IN JESUS."
Said nothing of the sort, said if he acted like that in public then nobody would. Because its an insufferable trait to have to simply throw Jesus into a conversation that isn't related to him. We've all met that person and if you haven't you should go to more churches.
I know nothing about him, his name or his history. This is the first time I even register reading his name. And by the weekend if I see him elsewhere I won't remember he said this to color my thoughts about him. Good try though.
I see why you see sycophants everywhere. You've lowered the bar so deep that its "doesn't agree with me" and "doesn't immediately doomer about him." I can disagree with his comment because I'm capable of the nuance necessary to support someone without worshiping them like a messiah.
He isn't even close to perfect. He is a Jew loving retard to a fault, somehow finds the most retarded people possible to appoint more than half the time, and isn't a quarter the draconian tyrant he needs to be to actually accomplish any of the goals people want.
Should I put that disclaimer before every comment about him lest I receive your swift judgement of sycophancy?
You're comparing internet anonymity to drunkenness? One enables a person to say something free of consequence. The other is altering people's brain chemistry to say things they normally wouldn't.
I agree with this for the most part, but it doesn't really prove either side true or false definitively. People, regardless of context, always seek out people that are like them and believe like they do. All groups are technically "echo chambers" to some degree, along the lines of what they agree upon as a group. People are less likely to go against the grain to avoid being ostracized by the group, which in the olden days amounted to expulsion and death in the wilderness. People are less likely to go against the grain, or vociferously disagree with something in a group, if the disagreement is small, if the group is healthy, and if the person doesn't want to fracture the group.
None of those variables hold true for most modern disagreements. Out problems are systemic, foundational, and deadly, and most groups are dysgenic, apathetic, fractured, atomized, and unhealthy. Given the circumstances of the modern world, anonymity still provides useful cover for people to speak the truth without consequence. Upvotes and downvotes are the most mild form of reward and consequence given to speech, in the entirety of human history, considering the current consequences for speaking wrongthink in person lead to being unpersoned by friends, family, and society, getting doxxed, being fired, getting debanked, being assaulted, and being murdered. The disparity is so extreme as to prove the point I was making.
You're trying to use the exception to disprove the rule. It doesn't work like that. There are definitely people who intentionally troll others online, and people do the same in real life with practical jokes or just being an asshole. But, that doesn't mean all speech is like that, or the majority of speech is like that. I agree, however, that many people pretend to be things they're not, just to maintain their position within whatever groups they occupy. Modernity is replete with examples, though, proving how unhealthy that behavior is when the groups no longer function on behalf of the people and for their good. Modern society is decaying, degenerate, dysgenic, corrupt, and on the verge of collapse. People need outlets to express the truth, free from the consequences of the tyranny and insanity we're living in.
As the world makes less and less sense, as things get worse, as we drift further from truth, more and more people will speak out against the falsehoods and lies, even if it means being punished, being ostracized, fracturing the groups they're a part of, going against the grain, or popping the false consensus "echo chamber".
What a strange objection. Are you aware of how insanely tangential most discussions are, online and in real life? Many conversations can end up on the other side of the known universe in just a few minutes or a few replies. Are you critical of all tangents in conversation, or just the one where this anon brought up Jesus? If you're not, then you're being a hypocrite. Out of curiosity, what's your religion? I assume you're not critical of other tangents in other conversations, so I must assume you're latching onto any criticism you can of Joe_Shmo, in a veiled attempt to undercut him.
If you're still unaware, after I brought it up, Joe_Shmo was criticizing Trump and his fanbase, for idolatry. The criticism is relevant to the discussion at hand, considering what Trump has been doing, and how his fanbase react to any negative comment about him. This very thread proves the point.
It was a safe assumption given what you said here:
Since he "shoehorned" Jesus into the discussion here, you're making the explicit claim that "nobody likes him" for "bring cringe". You're trying to pass your own feelings onto everyone else here, to present a false popularity/consensus, when in reality you can only speak for your feelings. Don't presume to speak for others, and don't manipulate conversations like that to try and prop up your own position. It's incredibly manipulative, dishonest, presumptive, and fallacious.
With regard to bringing up Jesus, I hang out with a lot of Christians, and I have my entire life, and very very few of them any more bring up Jesus in conversation, because they've been so thoroughly mocked, attacked, and degraded. The entirety of Christianity has been under constant assault by TPTB and their controlled institutions for decades. I'd rather people bring up Jesus, discuss the Bible, and profess their faith more openly, not less. We've seen the direct correlative consequences of the decline of Christianity in the West, and the downfall of the West, in just 100 years.
Fair enough. I suppose it's just your visible hatred of this particular tangent, of him bringing up Jesus into the discussion to criticize Trump and his sycophants, that seems to have roused your ire.
Ahhhh okay. You're now admitting that it was Joe_Shmo's criticism of Trump that you didn't like.
Feel free to peruse my profile. I'm extremely hesitant to paint things in black and white, to ignore all nuance and subtlety, to not explain it, acknowledge it, or explore it, except if the truth is obvious and plain. I call them sycophants because that's exactly how they act. Not all Trump supporters, but many. There is clearly a distinction, but the criticism of their behavior still stands. Your own defense of Trump is proof of this, even in this conversation. You're twisting and manipulating reality, flat out denying out in the open behavior of millions of Trump supports, all over many platforms and in real life, you're using fallacious arguments, casting your own feelings onto others to try to prove a false consensus (appeals to popularity are logical fallacies), and trying to hide behind carefully worded arguments to hide your true motive. If that's not sycophantic behavior in a vain attempt to protect Trump from the evil criticisms levied against him, I don't know what is.
On that, I agree. I have a lot more criticisms of him, though. I warned people, explicitly, here, elsewhere, and in real life, that he's corrupt and a danger, and that we must break free of the false dichotomy political bullshit we're being offered, and that all of his "gifts" he would offer would come at a terrible price, or be blown out of proportion to manipulate his fanbase, which would swallow it hook, line, and sinker. The one prediction I made that was false, was that I thought Trump's presidency would neuter the dissident right, the people who escaped the false dichotomy political plantation (Democrat vs Republican), and stop the proliferation of verboten red pills (jews and race realism). On the contrary, I'm very happy to be wrong about that, as it seems Trump's presidency, due precisely to his fellatio of jews, has exploded verboten discussion.
It's sometimes necessary, as I do it myself in certain audiences to point to where I come from. It's not always necessary, though. However, I've seen too many comments from you subversively and slyly trying to defend Trump to ignore your obvious motives. This entire conversation is further proof of that observation.
I'm curious, what would Trump have to do for you to stop defending him, and undercut anyone criticizing Trump? I don't ask this in jest, I'm earnestly curious. What line would Trump have to cross, explicitly?
No, comparing a historical idea people have used (that being drunk makes you say what you really feel) to the modern anonymity you claim is doing the same.
But, to simplify my point better now with a good night's rest. Anonymity grants them the ability to say their truth, but that doesn't mean most people will take it. And all the various factors I outlined are just some of the reasons why that might be the case.
I generally call out cringe when I see it and if I feel up for the argument. If you want to go back like a year or so you can see me call out Lethn dozens of times for it, or Telia earlier this year, or even Imp way back for shoving women in to everything hamfistedly. And Antonio and Gitz for being retarded about their attempts to counter the anti-Jew posters, sometimes in the same week as attacking those same guys for being retarded in how they do things! Almost like its about the method in which the speech is happening instead of the content, usually in an attempt to help someone be more convincing of their push or to simply make fun of them for my own amusement.
The same Jesus loving one as he and I assume you, my friend. Not much for specific denominations because of the baggage associated with the labels of them, but raised as both Southern Baptist and Catholic (long story). Just because I criticize how someone goes about their religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in it.
For example, our old boy Imp used to come to me on reddit as a "seasoned, senior anti-feminist/misogynist." He and I share enough in regards to gender politics to be almost twins, yet I was constantly calling him cringe, stupid, and other things.
I called a sentence he said out. That's all. Followed by an if in regards to dealing with that in person being an unlikeable trait. You keep trying to assign a much larger conspiracy at play here.
In fact, if you didn't feel compelled to repeat his full name over and over, I'd have forgotten it by now.
Nope, I replied to you and not him for a reason. I offered a gentle disagreement on the amount of obsessive sycophants Trump has, and then used the "I talk to people in real life, not social media" as my example. I used his comment as a small example of something that is much more acceptable online than it is in real life discussions. You latched onto it as indicative of some greater plot.
And they no doubt exist. My only offering was that I see people complain about it more than I encounter the very thing being complained about. The meme of it might outstrip the reality.
And then an additional offering of maybe its the manner in which you, or some other people, talk to them that makes them close ranks so hard and seem so insane. Which considering how you keep trying to accuse me of all sorts of hyperbolic things simply for the crime of calling something cringe and having a minor disagreement on how common something is, I now believe that is very much the case.
It is very ironic that you call yourself extremely hesitant to paint things in black and white, yet you have decided because I disagreed with you on a few topics I must be a sycophant playing some game to mess with the narrative and manipulate people.
I do as well, that was just a small generalized list. His entire first term was a fucking failure in all ways except stopping Hillary from getting in, and he did that day one. Half if not more of all the Covid consequences were set to happen because of him, and not Biden. The Vaxx was his Warpspeed baby after all.
When he falls below my expectations. Despite what you seem to have conjured, my expectations for him were and are low and are based entirely on relativity to the comparison. As in, is he doing something worse than Kamala/Hillary/Biden would have in the same position. Or even, is he doing something that I don't just expect baseline from every politician period. I expected him to be pro-Jew, so I don't get upset that he does exactly that even if I dislike it heavily. I expected him to be anti-immigration and he has in many avenues exceeded my expectations there in that I can physically see less illegals out and about in my town already (though no doubt mostly in hiding after a few raids), though some comments he has made have my concerned he will fuck that up in some manners regarding the Jeets and the Chinese. The Palantir shit seems all bad, and I have nothing further to add on that. The Middle East situation is a bumblefuck waiting to get worse that he keeps kicking, though he has done decently on that bumblefuck in the past.
And it needs actual time to come to fruition. This is important, because everyday we are bombarded with claims and info about him that sounds horrific, and then it either never happens or turns out to be not exactly as proscribed. This is why I "undercut" criticism so much, because doomers want you to "sell sell sell" the moment the stock dips at all instead of actually letting the sky fall just a little before freaking the fuck out. And sometimes I simply enjoy discussing things with someone who has an opposing point of view than me, even if I don't change my point of view on it. Arguing has more benefit than simply changing minds, it can sharpen your perspective and teach you new things, which is what most of my "undercuts" accomplish. I learn a lot during them, even if they usually don't change a thing.