▲ 660 ▼ Photos of anti-Trump 'No Kings' demonstrations across the US (apnews.com) submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 year ago* (1 child) I love that people are protesting, but why isn't it perfect and exactly how I want them to do it? If you went to one of them, you'd see that they're not just focusing on him. People out here complaining about these protests like it's literally their job. Suspect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -15 points 1 year ago (1 child) why isn't it perfect and exactly how I want them to do it? Burning Man called. They want their gigantic strawman back. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, so your argument wasn't that people aren't protesting correctly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I was pointing out ineffective messaging and made the specific reasons clear. Which you dumbed down to your own level of rhetorical competence and insight, I guess 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Well that was unnecessarily hostile. Just more evidence that you're arguing in good faith... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -15 points 1 year ago (1 child) why isn't it perfect and exactly how I want them to do it? Burning Man called. They want their gigantic strawman back. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, so your argument wasn't that people aren't protesting correctly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I was pointing out ineffective messaging and made the specific reasons clear. Which you dumbed down to your own level of rhetorical competence and insight, I guess 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Well that was unnecessarily hostile. Just more evidence that you're arguing in good faith... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Oh, so your argument wasn't that people aren't protesting correctly? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I was pointing out ineffective messaging and made the specific reasons clear. Which you dumbed down to your own level of rhetorical competence and insight, I guess 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Well that was unnecessarily hostile. Just more evidence that you're arguing in good faith... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -18 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I was pointing out ineffective messaging and made the specific reasons clear. Which you dumbed down to your own level of rhetorical competence and insight, I guess 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Well that was unnecessarily hostile. Just more evidence that you're arguing in good faith... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Well that was unnecessarily hostile. Just more evidence that you're arguing in good faith... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 1 year ago* (1 child) No, that was justifiably peeved since you're still insisting on misrepresenting my clearly stated point. If I was arguing in bad faith, I'd do something silly like reduce your argument to the most childishly simplified and egocentric possible interpretation and then insist on the accuracy of that after having the crux of the argument repeated just as clearly but more succinctly. Sound familiar? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago k permalink fedilink source parent