I stuck to the topic of the post and didn’t veer off. Anyone wants to start a different branch of the discussion, that’s fine. But that’s not what the comment I responded to did. They complained that I didn’t expand on the topic.
No, the dismissing tone of the message providing this contradiction is the problem.
It does not have the form of simple nuances or counter-arguments. It has the form of an attack on the previous commenter’s credibility.
I’m just saying that it isn’t as single facet as the screen shot tries to make it. It is/was a product of a full cultural shift and it wasn’t as arbitrary as that makes it out to be.
I don’t think trying to provide a more nuanced explanation qualifies as a blanket statement…
My comment had an important follow up, posted only 7 minutes later, that makes your response to me quite silly.
But even if I ignore my follow-up comment, beacause you maybe didn’t even notice its existence… If you don’t know how to read a three-sentences message without ignoring the first two-and-a-half, I don’t know what to tell you.
And to be clear, about the core of these comments, form aside.
I do not fully agree with the explanations given, while I recognise the reasonning as sound. I am just pretty sure there were and still are additional contributing factors, especially when not focusing on the USA.
I do agree with thu counter examples. (Again, not with how these were given.)
The examples in the post didn’t include those, so neither did I. Don’t read into it beyond the examples used
I stuck to the topic of the post and didn’t veer off. Anyone wants to start a different branch of the discussion, that’s fine. But that’s not what the comment I responded to did. They complained that I didn’t expand on the topic.
Ohhh providing examples that conflict with the narrative is complaining. Got it
No, the dismissing tone of the message providing this contradiction is the problem. It does not have the form of simple nuances or counter-arguments. It has the form of an attack on the previous commenter’s credibility.
If counter examples to highlight flaws in blanket statements are an attack to a person’s credibility then idk what to tell you.
I don’t think trying to provide a more nuanced explanation qualifies as a blanket statement…
My comment had an important follow up, posted only 7 minutes later, that makes your response to me quite silly.
But even if I ignore my follow-up comment, beacause you maybe didn’t even notice its existence… If you don’t know how to read a three-sentences message without ignoring the first two-and-a-half, I don’t know what to tell you.
That wasn’t very smart.
Pro-tip: if you don’t reply to a person, a message won’t go to their inbox.
Also your insult falls flat since you clearly don’t know how to edit a comment.
I refuse to engage further with your shit-stirring.
And to be clear, about the core of these comments, form aside. I do not fully agree with the explanations given, while I recognise the reasonning as sound. I am just pretty sure there were and still are additional contributing factors, especially when not focusing on the USA. I do agree with thu counter examples. (Again, not with how these were given.)