• bauhaus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?

    woooow

    • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.

      the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        you expressed confusion

        no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.

        this is just sad.

        • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          We all understand how exaggeration works. @[email protected] linked the article, clearly indicating it’s not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @[email protected] was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made

          • MORTARS@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I honestly think this guy might be some kind of troll. every single exchange he has with people results in him reusing these points.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            careful you don’t sprain something with those mental gymnastics!

            We all understand how exaggeration works

            clearly you know how to lie badly in an attempt to cover another pile of lies, but not how to lie well enough to convince someone smart than a small woodland creature— or yourselves.

            you know what would be impressive? if any of you could just admit you made a mistake and dropped this whole charade.

            • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              What more do you want than “I was exaggerating”? Once that was said, this whole BS could’ve just stopped. You then say “ok, now that we’re clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?” But we never got there, because you derailed.

              Request an edit if you really think it’s so misleading, I’m sure @[email protected] would’ve initially just edited if you were so concerned that this “lie” would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you’ve proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.

              • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                should have just called him names to begin with, this was one of the most pathetic interactions i’ve had online in recent memory

                although i guess it’s possible he’s like 11 and can’t really come up with anything else

                • Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there’s some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                What more do you want than “I was exaggerating”?

                since it was an obvious lie - not an “exaggeration” - not lying about it for hours and hours would be a nice place to start.

                But we never got there

                because I’m not stupid enough to believe such a feeble lie.

                Request an edit if you really think it’s so misleading, I’m sure @[email protected] would’ve initially just edited if you were so concerned that this “lie” would mislead others

                I that were true, they would have after I confronted them rather than doubling down, again and again, with one lie to cover another. for hours.

                Now I doubt it, because you’ve proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion

                refusing to accept such an obvious and feeble lie is not “acting in bad faith”. you coming here to try to gaslight me into believing that lie, however, IS:

                “DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”

                • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  for hours” lol fuck off loser it’s the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.

                  And “gaslight” and “abuse”? Jesus Christ kid, that’s some shit. I’m not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “for hours” lol fuck off loser it’s the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.

                    And “gaslight” and “abuse”? Jesus Christ kid, that’s some shit. I’m not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.

                    way to prove my point with a swear- and insult-filled tantrum.

                    I’m not replying anymore, so goodbye

                    gee, ya promise? lmao