198
Opinion: How to survive the broligarchy: 20 lessons for the post-truth world | The Observer
(www.theguardian.com)
Even dickheads love their dogs. Find a way to connect to those you disagree with. “The obvious mistakes of those who find themselves in opposition are to break off relations with those who disagree with you,” texts Vera Krichevskaya, the co-founder of TV Rain, Russia’s last independent TV station. “You cannot allow anger and narrow your circle.”
Pay in cash. Ask yourself what an international drug trafficker would do, and do that.
He’s thinking about flying a SpaceX rocket to Mars and raping and pillaging its rare earth minerals before anyone else can get there. We need a 30-year road map out of this.
- Take the piss. Humour is a weapon. Any man who feels the need to build a rocket is not overconfident about his masculinity. Work with that.
All those down votes are what you get for trying to bring any logic and thought to the discourse. And we thought Lemmy would be better than Reddit, eh?
Wait, you think that post was bringing logic and thought? Even if they are correct in their conclusion, they didn't bring any of that. It was just empty "no you're wrong" and then whining about downvotes.
I disagree. I found myself swayed by their argument.
It was to be expected. Downvotes simply mean people don't like what I'm saying - not that it's wrong. I say what I believe to be true even when I know it's unpopular. I just can't help but to call people out when they make generalized absolute statements like that. I don't even like Trump but I also seem to be missing the gene or whatever that makes so many absolute lose their minds over him to the point they can't even think straight anymore.
Based and genepilled
The topic has been debated to death. There's no logic, nor original thought here. Just more obstinate baiting for BS roundabout arguments that keep going in circles, and never engaged in good faith.
I wish you people would grow TF up, but we all know you never will.
Surely you can then point out where I've been engaging in bad faith here.
In a context where you know this was after a relatively long period of him not doing that.
It's disingenuous to the point of bad faith to present that as a bolstering remark (with no context until someone called you on it) to reduce accountability.
This reply was also in response to someone using masks and vaccines as conversation points, you responded to this by citing an event out of context and completely ignoring the mention of masks.
Also incorrect, they can dislike what you are saying and it can also be wrong, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Given the quality of your other responses i'd assume you know this (though i could be incorrect), so presenting it as a fact is either an oversight or intentional.
I don't agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump's project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn't trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.
He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don't see the need to defend him on that one.
Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn't alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well. There's comments in this tread with false info that's being upvoted.
Fair enough, i don't agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i'm not sure it matters.
Assuming his stance wasn't antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that's an entirely different argument.
Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.
Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn't, is a common bad faith tactic.
Perhaps that isn't what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that's what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.
Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = "people don't like the truth".
Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.
That you weren't actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )
Agreed.
Oh absolutely, but it's also pretty clear as why he didn't. He wanted the votes from the anti-vaxx/mask people too so being ambiquous about that is just a political game tactic. It's quite similar to how Kamala didn't seem to want to take a clear stance on Israel or the border situation for example because doing so would likely alienate a large part of her base.
True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.
Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.