Comment on Context is for people that read US news
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 15 hours agoOh, 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.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 14 hours ago
No, there’s a difference between strawmanning and subtext, and the fact that you refuse to see that tells me all I need to know.
Objection@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
In both cases, you’re just making up bullshit and trying to put it in my mouth. You can quibble over definitions all day long, doesn’t change that.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 13 hours ago
Subtext is not “making up bullshit” and if you think it’s the same thing then you really are dense.