Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
view the rest of the comments
"you made a typo which undercut your own argument,"
A single word that is very obviously referencing the working class like every other part of the comment, that you could only interpret as an "undercut" if you are not reading or understanding any of the rest of the comment and do not even read the title of the linked article referencing the working class.
"this was not me being pedantic"
I doubt you could get more pedantic.
you are focusing on a single word desperately trying to misunderstand the OP, every single other practical and context clue in three paragraphs of a comment, plus an article about the working class.
"it was a genuine question after having read your post"
is this true? you thought to yourself:
"hm, the post is about the working class, this commenter references the working class specifically, he references three working class issues biden made progress on, links an article specifically titled "working class", but he did type "middle" once in the second paragraph.
I can't tell what this comment is about!"
If you truly went through this process and that is the level of your reading comprehension, then I can leave it there, with my sympathies.
You’re interpreting “hey, this word you used is contrary to the rest of your argument - are you sure about your argument?” in a confrontational manner. Hence the question mark, and not something like “dumbass, Bernie was talking about the working class smh”. Hence the definition copypasta, because you (seemingly) conflated working class with middle class.
I can go back and absolutely re-read my post through the lens of condescension instead of a question, but so far you’re the only one who’s maintained an insulting tone.
"!You’re interpreting “hey, this word you used is contrary to the rest of your argument - are you sure about your argument?” in a confrontational manner. "
that is not what you wrote.
I'm interpreting what you wrote as confrontational because you wrote a completely different confrontational statement than your pretend-quote above.
despite the OP writing about the working class, me responding with the phrase"working class", pointing out three specific working class issues biden improved, linking an article titled "working class", you wrote:
"So you agree with Bernie that he wasn’t helping the working class?
middle class
noun
trying your hardest to ignore the post, comment, all of the context clues and available information so you could focus on a typo to come to an incorrect conclusion you could hold up with a pedantic flourish via boldtype and a definition.
you are being obnoxious, pedantic and confrontational.
If you were confused, you could have written:
"did you mean "working class"?
you wrote middle class."
instead, you went to the trouble of puzzling out a clearly incorrect conclusion despite all of the direct and contextual evidence, add boldtype unnecessarily, and very obnoxiously attach a definition to a phrase I'm obviously very familiar with since I'm talking about it with familiarity, citing specific examples and an article.
"Hence the question mark"
adding a question mark doesn't mitigate how obnoxious your comments are.
you're deliberately trying to misunderstand something so that you can attack me based on a minor error that is easily remedied and understood despite, within the context of the fuller comment or post.
you seem very happy to 1. lie about your direct quotes 2. lie about your intention based on those quotes 3. continue to defend those false quotes rather than apologizing and admitting you acted poorly.
The logical conclusion for your behavior is that you're trying to extend an argument, despite you not having a leg to stand on.
you can keep trying to make things up, and I will keep not letting that fly.
"I can go back and absolutely re-read my post..."
don't hurt yourself, who knows if you can manage the burden of glancing... or heaven forbid, reading?
question mark, so it's not confrontational?
I’m disengaging bc this is going nowhere and besides, sidebar rules - stay on topic.
Good of you to remember that guideline after you strolled off on a tangent half a dozen irrelevant, make-believe comments thick.