Yeah, so just as I said - good guys banning social medias is good because they are the good guys protecting the democracy against bad people and so on, and bad guys banning social medias is bad because they are the bad guys censoring the truth from oppressed people or something.
No hypocrisy here :)
Let me guess, you think Russia/China/etc. banning websites is bad (because obviously they are doing it due to being authoriatarian regimes and to not let people learn the truth), and EU (or generally any western country) banning websites is good (because obviously it would be done to protect democracy and people from consuming dangerous misinformation)?
Did I miss anything? :)
I guess it’s kinda obvious in my case :)
If “getting rid of the USA” is all you think the is to life, might I suggest getting one?
Seems like a good advice… that is, for people whose lives are not being destroyed by USA :)
Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.
What makes you think that “crypto has failed on it’s goals”?
I haven’t seen Kamala saying anything about ending the war tho or having a plan for that…
Omg, it’s really impossible to argue with you :/
In a dozen messages we’ve exchanged, you provided exactly 0 evidence of what you’re trying to prove, exactly 0 quotes of me that prove any of your points and exactly 0 valid arguments.
It’s impossible to continue this discussion :(
The statement immediately above was evidence.
You’re confusing your opinion with evidence. Sorry to tell you, but it doesn’t work that way.
No. The opposite is true, obviously.
Oh really? So you have empathy towards hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that died in the war, and also wish for war to end as soon as possible, and therefore support Trump who is the only politician who promised to end the war? Well, in that case what are we even arguing about :)
You are requesting evidence of a negative
I am requesting evidence of your arguments. If you argue something that you can’t prove, then your argument is by definition invalid.
Well, considering you cannot provide any evidence/proofs to anything you’re saying, I guess there is nothing more to talk with you about :(
That’s a shame
The consistent behavior of conservatives world-wide is evidence that conservatives are incapable of experiencing empathy for those outside of their in-group.
You didn’t provide any proof for that :)
And actually, why do you even consider me a conservative? Is it only conservatives who have a compassion for human life? :/
Your suggestion that your capacity for empathy is somehow different than all other conservatives is bizarre and itself requires evidence to be taken at face value.
You are the one suggesting that somehow I lack empathy, so burden of proof is on you ;)
Holy shit, you wrote such long comment, and it still doesn’t prove a single manipulation/deceptio n/lie from me XD
This is not a true statement on its face.
Let me give you a tip, since you seem to struggle argumenting: if you want to prove it - the easiest way is to provide a counter-example ;)
Most replies to your “innocent inquiries” provide evidence of your deception as you reply with moved goal-posts.
Well, again - provide a single example of that :)
This claim is an absurd falsehood that is evident to every rational human who reads your comment history.
And again, a fallacy without an actual argument.
Well go on, prove it, expose my lies to every one :)
Your post history is consistent evidence of my claim. Every comment you’ve made on Lemmy has been deceptive and manipulative on its face or in its substance.
Here we go again…
Every time somebody says this, I ask for just one example. And never receive it (because I neither manipulate nor deceive anyone :).
So, any examples? :)
There is no such thing as a “good conservative” alive today.
Well yeah, you definitely seem like a good guy
Well, this is false :)
I do experience empathy towards all Ukrainians dying in this war, not just my friends and family (although obviously I care more about them, that’s how life works).
It is not possible for a liberal to enter a discussion in good faith. Every word uttered by a liberal is deception or manipulation. Every word.
See? I can do it as well :)
Now, do you have an actual point/argument that makes sense?
You seem to have trouble understanding my question :(
Let me rephrase it in that case - whom should I support if I want war to end?
It’s definitely not Dems though, as they will continue the war just like they were doing this whole time.
In case you are not willing to answer it, good day to you as well :)
Well, first of all no - it’s a fallacy and doesn’t work like that ;)
Secondly, if there are two parties, and you distrust both, but first party has been supporting war for two years and says that they will continue to do so, and the second party says they will stop it - how is it not the logical choice to support the second party (assuming you are actually affected by the war and so want it to end)?
I choose to, perhaps naively, think that some people might actually recognize how absurd this is, and hopefully change their opinion :)
Just “watching comedy from the sidelines” can result in one day waking up in a totalitarian hell :/
(Not that my shitposting will change much of course :/)