(FYI - the article that the guy is replying to is misinformation. Two commenters have provided snopes links for anyone curious.)
(FYI - the article that the guy is replying to is misinformation. Two commenters have provided snopes links for anyone curious.)
Well I was trying to be simplistic but since you typed so much, the reason your message isnt received well is because you assume Ill intent by the OP, while the one getting up votes makes no assumptions about intent.
Technically theirs is more accurate because they are acknowledging they can’t know the original intent, while you are arguing that its obvious what their intent is.
I said literally nothing about their intent in my comment whatsoever.
Yes its implied, evidenced by the people down voting you. Thats how rhetoric works. Same message, different delivery.
No, I implied nothing. The other person went out of their way to assuage people that just because they were calling out misinformation didn’t mean they’re not on their side - I just stated facts without making any indication about what I thought of OP’s intent. Loyalty and tribalism come before truth. People posting false information have to be reassured that you think they’re great before you correct them. It’s ridiculous.
Okay I disagree.
Well, there’s nothing you can point to in what I wrote that implies anything about intent so I’d say your disagreement is pretty objectively wrong.
I think you dont know what objective means.
If you just say “I disagree” while having absolutely no grounds for that disagreement then you’re objectively wrong.
I dont think you know what objective means.