No, that is literally the “knee-jerk reaction” I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.
Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it’s so simple?
What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?
You are describing your process of making a guess. You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected and are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
You are describing your process of making a guess.
…yes? I guessed at your intention.
You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected
Because that’s not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.
are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
…no? I’m just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said “what looked like”??
Because that’s not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.
No, you are calling this your ongoing criticism.
It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?
It is exactly this attitude I criticise - in you, as well.
There is no voting that will stop this genocide.
I am not going to explain linear time again. You are again presenting contradictory narratives because you cannot rationalize your own statements but you are simultaneously so defensive of them that you can’t just acknowledge your mistake and move on.
I will not be replying further in this particular comment chain. This is beyond repetitive and you need to do self-crit instead of saying nonsense and forcing me to do the crit for you.
Nah you’re making up a story and believing it despite correction. Or, as a shorthand: lying.
No, that is literally the “knee-jerk reaction” I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.
Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it’s so simple?
What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?
You are describing your process of making a guess. You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected and are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.
You know, lying.
…yes? I guessed at your intention.
Because that’s not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.
…no? I’m just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said “what looked like”??
No, you are calling this your ongoing criticism.
I am not going to explain linear time again. You are again presenting contradictory narratives because you cannot rationalize your own statements but you are simultaneously so defensive of them that you can’t just acknowledge your mistake and move on.
I will not be replying further in this particular comment chain. This is beyond repetitive and you need to do self-crit instead of saying nonsense and forcing me to do the crit for you.