100% and they’re trying to work on the definition of ‘Doctor’ too.

I was wondering when they would start to figure out that maybe it’s a bad idea for the government to get between people and their doctors.

Haha, what a silly Onion article!

:checks URL:

Oh. Oh no.

He can go kick rocks. I’m trying to help you.

From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to “go respond to this guy instead”, but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I’m trying to help prevent in the future.

Oof. Nevermind, then. Tried to show you why being an asshole about it might have backfired, but keep being jaded!

Apparently the way Lemmy’s link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link ‘to be helpful’, you only linked to your own comment. That’s not actually helpful and so it doesn’t come across in the best way.

This is an image of Mark Barden, not Alex Jones, BTW. His son was killed during Sandy Hook.

You misunderstand my point. Let me explain again.

I don’t care if they’re being genuine or not and don’t feel a need to prove it one way or the other. I will treat anyone who is defending Nazis as if they are genuinely Nazis themselves because at the end of the day, that’s what they’re pushing for, intentionally or not.

The damage this can cause does not change if it was intentional or not, so our reaction to it should not change either.

Their initial comment was complete nonsense, and sarcastic derision is one of the few things that actually upsets people like that who ignore the content of the conversation while also pretending to have the moral high ground. Their point is often to get people arguing amongst themselves instead of realizing they just shifted the conversation from “Here is a Nazi in Indiana” to “You can’t prove that Chinese speakers aren’t Nazis.” (Like we’re doing now.)

What would you have called them out for that fits better than moving goalposts or a strawman argument?

You admit that they were running interference for a nazi, but also want to give them the benefit of the doubt? Historians have a word for people who didn’t agree fully with, but still defended nazis. Want to know what they were called?

Nazis.

If you’re aligning yourself with them, running interference for them, I’m going to treat you as if it is intentional because the effect is the exact same. If it was an accident, there were plenty of opportunities to change opinions and apologize. That hasn’t happened, so all evidence we have points to the person defending Nazis being disingenuous here.

You have to make assumptions on people’s motivations either way. I’m just more willing to base my assumptions on how genuine someone is being whether or not they are running interference for Nazis.

I think you should be cautious of just how much faith you’re putting into this person.

They said they’d agree

They didn’t. They only gave reasons to not agree. They implied that they would agree if that condition was met, but that’s not what they said.

they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi

Again, they didn’t. They said, “I missed that,.my bad.” They didn’t change anything about their argument from this information (that was always available to them), just acknowledged that they didn’t use it.

Maybe I should’ve called their argument a strawman argument instead, but the discrepancy between what they say OP can call a Nazi and what they can call a Nazi feels wide enough to change the rules of the debate for each side.

The goalposts to being a nazi got moved farther back because “we can’t know their intent from just this license plate” and then 2 seconds later, the goalposts for being a nazi was moved way forward because “everyone who says good luck in Chinese is a Nazi.”

Yes, that’s literally moving the goalposts on what defines a Nazi.

Why? You ignore content anyway.

Your back must hurt from moving all those goalposts.

Christians: Give your money to the poor and love your neighbor as yourself.

Also Christians: Those lazy illegals are taking our jobs! We shouldn’t be taking people’s hard-earned money and just GIVING it to people who have PROVEN they can’t manage it! What about MY bootstraps!

They’ve convinced themselves their (absolutely wrong) choice is the ‘morally correct’ one. Even LISTENING to a contradictory argument is seen as a moral ‘corruption’, so they just … don’t.

Because they’re a notoriously bad design that is prone to failing on every front that Tesla claimed they were the ‘cutting edge’ on. They’re just BAD. The only way Tesla is going to sell out of their production line is by forcing someone to buy them, and it looks like it’s the US military.

I wouldn’t think the same thing for Ford F150s, but I DEFINITELY would if suddenly we started hearing about police suddenly buying Fisher Price cars after hearing story after story of how they break down and leave toddlers stranded.

I’d imagine the biggest difference is that these employees could actually get fired if they turn theirs off.

You said there was no evidence that anyone would change. I told you my personal story how this IS impacting me and how I’m going to change OS on my next computer, and you… just sarcastically dismissed me?

Did you want to actually contribute to the conversation or just be upset?