this is a false dichotomy. in this context, i don’t think there’s much benefit to mollycoddling, and i don’t think there’s much benefit to open hostility. i was simply trying to ask why you chose to reply in such a hostile tone.
it’s also not clear to me how chainweasel is a genocide apologist. could you explain how you reached that conclusion?
Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.
People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.
what is the benefit of writing a response with such a hostile tone?
What’s the benefit of mollycoddleing genocide apologists like Chainweasel?
this is a false dichotomy. in this context, i don’t think there’s much benefit to mollycoddling, and i don’t think there’s much benefit to open hostility. i was simply trying to ask why you chose to reply in such a hostile tone.
it’s also not clear to me how chainweasel is a genocide apologist. could you explain how you reached that conclusion?
Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.
People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.
Well you see, I reached that conclusion by reading their comments and not being deliberately disingenuous.