BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]

@Saapas@piefed.zip who I can’t respond to for some reason: good point! Wish I’d mentioned that

Alternatively if you’re trying to dunk on someone have the basic respect for the audience and be either effective or original, which “two things can be true at once” is, ironically, neither.

Whoops. Read the rest of the text next time buddy.

Considering how they reacted when Putin explained basic Eastern European history to you’re probably right

You do understand how saying “two things can be true at once” as if you’re talking to an actual toddler is incredibly condescending and not a good place from whence to start a conversation, right? Have the basic respect for someone you’re talking and assume they also have object permanence.
Stepping into the room like you’re the enlightened Buddha whose shit don’t stink, because you just figured out that both Biden and Trump can be senile at the same time, only has the effect to make everyone else look at you like the idiot you are for

1. Not figuring it out earlier and
2. Behaving as if you’re presenting some novel insight.

Alternatively if you’re trying to dunk on someone have the basic respect for the audience and be either effective or original, which “two things can be true at once” is, ironically, neither.

Edit: its also an incredibly reductive way of approaching geopolitics. Reducing critique of US foreign policy to “our guy bad yes, but their guy bad also!!” is in fact what whataboutism is supposed to describe. It’s a rhetorical trick drawing a line where the only discussion about world events can be about wether one of the two things the iniator mentions is more true than another. Bring up a third thing or a more in-depth critique of one of the two pre-existing things and you’ll get drowned out.
It’s a thought-terminating cliché.

If Putin said the sky was blue, would you suddenly insist it wasn’t?

Also: “everyone I disagree with is a russian propagandist. I am the only sapient creature in the world” - You, when you’re particularly honest with yourself

It’s not a perfect metaphor, but Texas would be the the two Ukrainian states with a majority ethnic russian population that sought independence after eurromaidan

Sadly I’m looking for the specific phrase. It’s a cliché so it comes up often enough

I dunno, Russian man seems pretty sensible all things considered.
If the warzaw pact was still a thing and it had slowly been inducting south- and central American nations, despite agreements not to do so, and it was now about to induct Mexico (which had had its government couped and replaced with a pro-russian government some years before), then I think it would be pretty sensible of the US to draw a red line at mexican Warzaw pact membership and invade in order to avoid it.
Also in this analogy Texas is part of Mexico and the Mexican government has been bombing Texas for eight years, in breach of two treaties with the US.

The United States didn’t start invading and meddling in other countries until trump?

Looking to fill out my liberal bingo card I came to this thread looking for “two things can be true at once”.

Edit: by announcing I am observing a thread I have changed its behaviour. Redditors see my comment and rephrase into other clichés.

“i don’t want politics in my games” is an insane thing to say when the biggest franchises for decades have been games about wars. All art is inherently political, but come on. War being apolotical? Literal babybrain. No, politics is when woman and black and I suppose

I should make a “liberal thoughtkiller” flowchart. Everything they do is predetermined

Why do you only mention the Jewish people and not the Roma, the homosexual, the transgender, the socialist, the communist or the many other groups targeted? Far more than 6 million were targets of genocide by the Nazis.

So I can’t see most of the comments here on hexbear, but In going to assume you have a bunch of libs agreeing that yes Trump has made it worse, a few comrades pointing out the US has always been like this, and then a shitton of dumbass lemmitors spouting ahistorical red-scare arguments in response to those comrades.

Yeah? So I say you’ve figured out how not be grating. I don’t state at any point I find you or have found you grating. You really need to get better at this proof thing. Maybe learn to read?

Yeah, so? Where in that statement do I specifically say “I find you grating”? You’ve made a pretty serious accusation about how I treat others, doing so requires proof, and it seems like you don’t have any

I don’t get it, why did quote a comment of me not specifically saying “I find you grating” as proof for your spurious allegation that I’d said that?

Yes that is me. So?
Wish I was part of a hive mind, but we’ve deleted bureaucrat sadly :(

I haven’t said I find you grating. You gotta have proof for such an extraordinary statement. No it’s, no ands, no buts. Where’s your proof?

Hey, thanks for figuring out how not to be incredibly grating.
For one thing, you’ve yet to answer my questions. For another, seems like we’re doing the same thing, so I reckon you can answer your query yourself.

What do you mean?