Being protective of your good fortune at the expense of others is itself part of an ideology, so I don’t see why you felt the need to contradict and condescend. A person who’s not a piece of shit would have no business being a conservative, no matter how privileged they are.
Now go argue with someone else because I’m getting big reddit energy from you, and it’s making me anxious.
How about I express myself as I see fit, and you compose yourself for the next time someone writes in a way that makes you feel “anxious” yet at the same time unable to control the urge to lecture them.
Who are you to tell me how I should express myself?
That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”
Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?
I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
Being protective of your good fortune at the expense of others is itself part of an ideology, so I don’t see why you felt the need to contradict and condescend. A person who’s not a piece of shit would have no business being a conservative, no matter how privileged they are.
Now go argue with someone else because I’m getting big reddit energy from you, and it’s making me anxious.
Im not even sure how to respond to this. Okay? I suppose
Next time, either be considerate and don’t lead with a debatelord’s tone, or don’t comment at all if you can’t resist being an argumentative prick
How about I express myself as I see fit, and you compose yourself for the next time someone writes in a way that makes you feel “anxious” yet at the same time unable to control the urge to lecture them.
Who are you to tell me how I should express myself?
When you treat people like shit and throw pointed words at them, I’m going to call you out for it. I don’t owe you an apology.
But fair enough, I’ll block you. I had my fill of you neckbeards during my miserable tenure on reddit, and I never want to speak to you again.
Whom did I treat like shit in your opinion? I have not addressed anyone except nameless politicians.
Maybe spend less time arguing with people you say you don’t want to argue with and more on improving your reading comprehension
I think you ought to read beyond the first paragraph they wrote
And I think you ought to keep your thoughts to yourself, if you have nothing worth contributing besides haughty arrogance and presumption.
Besides, I did read their whole comment. That’s what I responded to.
Wtf dude chill
Just saying, the second and third paragraph seem to agree with you
That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”
Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?
I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
It was, because like I said, it is ideological. You said it wasn’t. After I’ve explained my point, you can’t just say “nuh uh”.
What?? You need to go back and re-read who said what. I said it is ideological. It’s the other guy who said that it’s not.
Are … you replying to the wrong user? Oh gods, do you think I"m … him? 🤮