• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you don’t read that implication into it, you’re just straight-up illiterate.

    • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That just isn’t the case. Like, sure, it is a possible implication. But it is not the most likely one given the context. There are other implications to draw, like the ones I’ve given examples of, which are more likely given the context.

      The fact that people can’t understand my point and are mass downvoting is what I’m talking about. I’ll sperg out on this despite the disagreement because I’m interested in rhetoric and political messaging.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, we understand your point perfectly: you’re making a concern-trolling argument to shill for Trump.

        Additionally, you can fuck right off with the condescending lie that the only possible reason someone might disagree with you is that they “can’t understand” (i.e. implying that they’re stupid or ignorant).

        • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Nope. I’m actually being good faith. Genuinely. Check my post history if you want. You can disagree with someone and acknowledge they aren’t arguing in bad faith. Like I think you’re good faith even though you’re coming across with a bunch of ad hominems and stuff, but I think you believe what you’re saying.

          And I’m not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point. Otherwise, I wouldn’t waste time trying to communicate it. I’m saying I think people are mischaracterizing my position.

          Literally, all I’m saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they’re based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique. That’s my whole point.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            And I’m not being condescending. I think people can absolutely understand my point.

            Your implication is that if they understood, they would agree. That’s the condescending part.

            In reality, we understand but disagree, because you’re the one who’s actually wrong. You need to get that through your head and quit insulting everybody’s intelligence.

            Literally, all I’m saying is: when we make criticisms of the other side, those criticisms are usually stronger in the long run if they’re based on the actual positions they take rather than straw-manned ones. And I think this is a strawmanned critique.

            And literally everyone else in this thread is telling you you’re wrong – delusionally so. This is the same [im]plausibly deniable mob-boss speak Trump uses All. The. Fucking. Time. It’s not hard to recognize! It’s literally his favorite rhetorical technique.