You must log in or register to comment.
RL has been like that for a while
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn’t going to attack them. It’s a defensive organization.
That’s what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who “they” were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn’t nato)
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that’s without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
Don’t worry. It won’t happen like this. There will be no one left.
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
Hidden panel: guy on left saying “google it yourself, don’t expect me to have to teach you anything”
Why should anyone ever have to substantiate their claims???
Source: The clouds.
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
birds used to be real
No, that’s the current trend here (Switzerland plains).
If somebody would ask for a source it would already be a big improvement. Usually you are just classified as idiot if you dare to have a different view.
