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.
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.