Comment on Context is for people that read US news
Objection@lemmy.ml 17 hours agoThat’s just fucking disingenuous for you to say, this whole post is about how he supposedly has so many red flags
Having a Nazi tattoo is a red flag, in itself, regardless of whether I can prove that he knew it was a Nazi tattoo when he got it. Obviously, the bigger red flag was that he was a Blackwater mercenary, a killer-for-hire who bragged about firing a mortar at civilian targets.
then I don’t know what to tell you other than he’s been heavily astroturfed and smeared by establishment politicians who are terrified of losing ground to progressives and the DSA.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of legitimate criticism as well.
That’s not a retreat, that’s spelling it out for you in block letters because you can’t seem to glean that from the subtext.
Oh, fascinating, so now it’s “subtext.”
Alright, well the “subtext” that I’ve been picking up from you is that Graham Platner is a divine being who we should all build temples to and worship. So, I’m going to need you to prove Platner’s divinity, or else you’re clearly full of shit.
What a ridiculous tactic. You can’t just strawman me based on nothing and then claim that it’s “subtext.”
Yeah, I mean if he didn’t know what it was when he got it, then what’s your point?
My point is simply that it is, factually, a Nazi tattoo.
People try to use it as justification to call him a nazi. That assumes intent, implying that he knew what he was getting.
Who said that, in this thread? Or is this more of that fascinating “subtext?”
And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.
And if someone can’t glean that you’re asking for temples to be erected to worship Platner as a god, you’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse. See, I can say bullshit too.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 16 hours ago
Source?
You apparently don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman.
And yeah, if you can’t read subtext then it would be hard to have any real media literacy at all.
Willfully obtuse it is, thank you for clarifying that.
Recognizing that Platner is a better choice than Susan Collins and we shouldn’t be doing maga’s work for them by tearing apart his campaign isn’t exactly “erecting temples and worshipping,” but go off. Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
Objection@lemmy.ml 16 hours ago
xcancel.com/BenMcCombe/…/1982083117709176945
Let me guess, this is also “subtext.” This is such a neat trick. I really don’t think you should eat babies, like you’re subtextually talking about.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 15 hours ago
Oh, so you’re just illiterate? He didn’t say he lobbed mortar fire at civilian targets. He said he improvised a grenade launcher to return indirect fire to incoming mortar sites. Yours was a wildly inaccurate mischaracterization.
And no, again, you clearly don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you.
Let me break this down for you in the plainest terms:
If Platner loses, Susan Collins wins. Those are your choices. It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party, FPTP system, but we do. So if you’re contributing to the smear campaign against Platner, then you’re basically campaigning for Collins. That’s called subtext, and it says a lot about you that you needed that to be ELI5ed.
Accusing me of eating babies and erecting temples is a strawman. See the difference?
Objection@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
I usually find that discussions are more protective when they focus on things people actually said, and not bullshit that you made up and assigned to them. Whether making up bullshit and putting words in other people’s mouths is called “subtext” or “strawmanning” doesn’t really matter, it’s equally unproductive and bad faith either way.