I never lied, so no, we haven’t established that. All we’ve established is that you will go to enormous lengths to try to discuss something entirely irrelevant. It’s like I never left Reddit.
You absolutely 🎶diiiiiiiiiiiiiid🎶 and you are humiliating yourself here.
…
(Hey so I’m gonna go do something more interesting than listen to you recite the narcissist’s prayer, I’ll get back to your next limp accusation of “perverted debate behavior” or not making a point or w/e in a while mmk? mmk.)
Honestly? When they started trying to make up nonsense to excuse away intentionally misleading people.
I don’t particularly care if someone uses a bad source accidentally, but it does annoy me when someone with a history of using bad sources never ever gets called on it. The source they cite they’ve never read, and they’re trying to claim that “not available to the public without a very selective application that requires a business email, one that they clearly did not pass” is the same thing as “publicly available”. It’s obnoxious.
I was very nice up until that point, but now we’ve reached comment depth and despite admitting that what they did was shitty they’re still trying to spin it like they did nothing wrong. He just used a bad source, right? But he can’t admit that was a mistake. It’s damning behavior, really.
It is rather effective, isn’t it? I mean, anyone can see what I’m doing there. It’s not subtle.
But, weirdly, they still have to respond. I know that was childish; I mean obviously, that was the whole point. Drawing attention to how they backed themselves into an ideological corner and sceded me the bulk of the social power in this… whatever it is. I can say anything and they still have to respond, and as you point out I’ve very effectively demonstrated that concept.
Seriously, if they were arguing in good faith or were really the bigger person or didn’t care or so on, why are they still talking to someone that mocks them with emoji? It’s the lowest form of engagement - ideas so void of originality that they can be represented as a symbol. And yet, apparently still engaging enough for them to continue making nonsense up to defend themselves.
If this were just this argument, they’d lose nothing by walking away. But they insist on dragging it out, and I’m genuinely curious where they’re trying to go with this.
Comment depth edit: Exactly! Wonderful example, thank you Amnesigenic. Emoji are less blatant about it because they can be embedded with text, but they’re equally as valueless a contribution (outside of this specific meta-commentary, obviously)
For someone who was just so concerned that I was still talking to you, you sure seem to be interested in keeping this conversation going…
Anyways, no, that wasn’t trolling. The result was pretty forgone and what I said wasn’t intended to provoke, just to serve as an example of the futility of the position they’ve put themselves in.
Anyways no, as I explained that wasn’t trolling; that was the setup that let me make a rather salient point. One you yourself are continuing to validate the effort of highlighting.
You’re still… doing this? You lied, dude. You knowingly presented a source to support your claim as being public, when it isn’t, and even better you’d never even seen the data. That’s just lying, there’s no way to whine or insult your way out of it. You, are a liar.
It is available to the public, though. Here’s Arnaud Bertrand talking about it. I’ve seen the data. I am not a liar, you seemed to have an extremely particular definition of publicly available and derailed the conversation on those ground alone. Very strange.
The simple truth is that anyone can go and apply for it, and the data is already being spread around. I’m not arguing “in favor” of this system, just that this isn’t some tight-locked info. It’s not that I cannot get it, I already explained that I don’t want to give my personal info to a NATO official’s org.
Secondly, I never implied that the data was representative of anything other than perceptions, I included that in the first comment I referenced it in. I just added that it’s indicative of a strong, comprehensive democracy that perceptions are so high. This isn’t dishonest in the slightest.
I already admitted fault to calling you a liar, when it’s clear that we both aren’t. Not sure why you’re still doing this, it’s pretty clear that the definition bit is the one where we disagree, and you’re insistent that disagreement means I’m a liar. There’s nothing for you to really do, and you just imply that the source is faulty at the end for no reason whatsoever.
I’m confused - my whole point is that it’s not available for the public to go and get. The idea that “no steps” is required is a strawman - I’ve claimed throughout exactly what you’ve just said. The public needs to be able to get it. Right now, you yourself can’t go and get it, nor can anyone else in this thread that lacks persuasive credentials. So, and I swear to god I’m sincerely asking, how does something with a selective application process meet your idea of publicly available? It’s quite literally bourgeoisie control of information and you’re arguing in favor of that.
And… yes. Perhaps calling you an outright liar was wrong - but you have knowingly misrepresented multiple aspects of this, and stooped to truly dishonest argumentative techniques while doing it. The initial criticism was of you implying a survey was a reflection of the functioning of various governments, not people’s opinions on them. You then went on to insist that your interpretation is within the scope of the study - but you cannot have any idea if that’s true, because you have not read the portion of the study where the scope is explained. You even briefly attempted to reject the very idea of caring about the authors interpretations instead of the data itself, but then later admitted your interpretations are themselves based on some other peoples interpretations of the data anyways.
You came into this like it’s a fight - and it’s stayed that way. You’re in an awful position where cannot admit fault, and you can’t let someone else have the last word, because doing either would truly de-legitimize your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders. You’re trapped in here with me, and it’s starting to feel like it’s all just a considered act, not an honest attempt to engage. And that’s… pretty hollow. I hope I’m wrong there, but I truly doubt that I am.
Have you ever freely accepted fault for a bad source or similar, which is common and happens all the time, or is (sincerely) the concern of de-legitimizing your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders really such a critical point for you?
In general, I make it a point to not run away when pressed. That way, if anyone does continue to read on, it gives my points more legitimacy. I think by this point it’s pretty clear that you and I disagree on what constitutes “publicly available,” I consider anything to be available to the public to go and get to be publicly available, while you take the more extreme view that for something to be publicly available, it must have no steps required to get it, a simple link to a download or viewing must be the shortest distance. I disagree, but I don’t honestly think this disagreement is worth calling either of us liars.
To that end, I suppose I got carried away and returned your energy. Once you declared me a liar and untrustworthy, I wanted to flip that on its head. You called it a “no u” argument, but my point was always clear, you and I both have different views on what publicly available means. The data itself that I referenced and the points I made based on them are widely available from people like the person I linked, so it’s not like the validity of the data is seriously in question.
As for not taking it to DMs, it’s because I know neither of us are likely to be convinced, so the only utility it could possibly have to either of us is being in the open. I don’t really expect to convince you in particular, but discussing things openly has convinced many bystanders to my various points over the years, so it’s keeping true to that.
I guess I’m curious why you’re still replying too, why is this interesting? I already explained how you pretended “publicly available” has an extremely specific meaning that doesn’t mean accessible to the public.
Either way, though, I don’t see the other people here, so not sure what you mean there.
Specifically I’m curious about what drives someone to be so invested, why you’d care so much. My earlier antics really make it clear there’s something more complex going on here for you to keep responding in earnest. Seriously, anyone should have just ignored me from there. So why didn’t you? What about this is so important as to be worth putting up with that?
It should be clear by now that your continuing denials or attempts to flip the narrative or just pleasant jibes aren’t landing, but you persist. If you really believe nobody is reading and you genuinely dont care, why not just take it to DMs? Why keep doing this performative thing? What are you getting from this?
(Someone downvoted your last comment and it wasn’t me, and there’s been people bopping through occasionally to up/down vote things. Not tons but there are clearly people watching, if only to read the drama I presume.)
Honestly I thought the same thing but there’s evidently several people still following this.
I’ve made clear why I’m still here - this is genuinely very interesting for me. But what are you getting out of it? You’re not exactly trying, you just tried to “no u” the argument and that’s at the level of emjoi taunts so there’s that.
I can’t imagine this is fun for you, so again like… why keep it up? Seriously, putting all the bickering aside, why do this?
Sigh. I know you have no choice but to deny it, but you really could be the bigger person and walk away. I dislike unrepentant liars, but there’s no real hard feelings here - and it’s not going to damage your reputation if you just leave. You’re giving me the power to dictate this by demonstrating how very important it is to you, and I don’t even particularly enjoy it.
Seriously, why do you care so much about getting the last word and being right? Is “losing” a comment thread even really a concept outside of reddit, and if not… what’s the point of all this for you?
I did not misrepresent the study, and I read the relevant bits. You proceeded to become a debate pervert about what you personally consider to be the definition of “publicly accessible,” even though the public absolutely can and does access it. It’s just silly and terminally online.
Sure, but I think I’ve well established my claims - you misrepresented a study you’d never read, lied about it and then had to save face when I called you out. I’m just reiterating those points, I haven’t brought anything new in ages.
Seriously, I’ve already demonstrated that I can say essentially whatever and you’ll still come back at me with denials, deflection and straight lies (if the public can’t access something, it’s not publicly accessible. Just go access it yourself - it’s that simple). I openly did a sing-song voice with emoji and you still came back, treating it like it was worth your time.
You’ve dignified that slop with your responses. While it’s well established that you’ve lied and are trying to take it back, and yet you’re still here, doing this.
I’ve given you multiple opportunities to leave with most of your dignity intact and yet you don’t take them, and that’s perplexing. Why are you still here? What do you gain from this?
I could be all smug and go on about this being fun for me or whatever, but dropping the act for a second: it’s genuinely interesting to watch you doing this. I seriously don’t know why you’re persisting. One person accusing you of being a liar that misrepresented a source once isn’t going to harm you to just… leave alone.
The public can access the material, they just have to request it. It isn’t being withheld from people, or locked behind paywalls. The author of the thread pushed people to go and check it out by doing so. It’s a bit odd to say I’m insistent on getting the last word, when you continue to reply and continue to make claims and ask questions.
(Okay your insistence on getting the last word is becoming concerning. Do you wanna take this to DMs? Otherwise it’s gonna start getting silly.)
“I can’t give out my email to a NATO run organization” has gotta be the lamest… they already have it. Come on with this, you have to know how transparent that excuse is.
“Publicly available” means available to the the public. It isn’t - you can’t get it, and you’re the public. The author of your twitter thread had to be given it. It’s not publicly available. This isn’t some abstract definition like you’re trying to imply, it’s just what the words themselves mean. Ya did a shit thing buddy, and then piled lies and lame excuses up on top to cover for it instead of just admitting to a single mistake. It’s sad.
(also lmao, got banned from five dead comms by one butthurt mod, and a bunch of comms by automod that was promptly reversed, you really got me there. Let’s just take a look at your moderation his-- oh dear god.)
Why are you continuing this? I don’t want to provide my email to an org run by a NATO official. That doesn’t mean people cannot get access to it, and your insistence that this means it is not available to the public is silly. I never said it was “publicly available without requesting it,” you have an extreme fixation on your specific interpretation of what publicly available means. It’s no wonder you were banned from many communities for being a troll/sealion.
@[email protected] How cute you’re still trying this. Anyways, if it’s publicly available, please go download and read it. Until then, I mean… guess you’re not part of the public? Seems preeetty clear u liar.
I never lied, so no, we haven’t established that. All we’ve established is that you will go to enormous lengths to try to discuss something entirely irrelevant. It’s like I never left Reddit.
Man, go back to the “debate pervert” thing that was way less embarassing for you than honestly calling someone a redditor.
I never lied, yet you continued to play debate games to try to derail the conversation. None of this is particularly embarrassing for me.
You absolutely 🎶diiiiiiiiiiiiiid🎶 and you are humiliating yourself here.
…
(Hey so I’m gonna go do something more interesting than listen to you recite the narcissist’s prayer, I’ll get back to your next limp accusation of “perverted debate behavior” or not making a point or w/e in a while mmk? mmk.)
(Bye for now!)
Jesus, how did you become so obnoxious?
Honestly? When they started trying to make up nonsense to excuse away intentionally misleading people.
I don’t particularly care if someone uses a bad source accidentally, but it does annoy me when someone with a history of using bad sources never ever gets called on it. The source they cite they’ve never read, and they’re trying to claim that “not available to the public without a very selective application that requires a business email, one that they clearly did not pass” is the same thing as “publicly available”. It’s obnoxious.
I was very nice up until that point, but now we’ve reached comment depth and despite admitting that what they did was shitty they’re still trying to spin it like they did nothing wrong. He just used a bad source, right? But he can’t admit that was a mistake. It’s damning behavior, really.
I mean how did you become a parody of a smug, obnoxious redditer who seems to have learned to talk solely from Joss Weadon movies and anime?
It is rather effective, isn’t it? I mean, anyone can see what I’m doing there. It’s not subtle.
But, weirdly, they still have to respond. I know that was childish; I mean obviously, that was the whole point. Drawing attention to how they backed themselves into an ideological corner and sceded me the bulk of the social power in this… whatever it is. I can say anything and they still have to respond, and as you point out I’ve very effectively demonstrated that concept.
Seriously, if they were arguing in good faith or were really the bigger person or didn’t care or so on, why are they still talking to someone that mocks them with emoji? It’s the lowest form of engagement - ideas so void of originality that they can be represented as a symbol. And yet, apparently still engaging enough for them to continue making nonsense up to defend themselves.
If this were just this argument, they’d lose nothing by walking away. But they insist on dragging it out, and I’m genuinely curious where they’re trying to go with this.
Comment depth edit: Exactly! Wonderful example, thank you Amnesigenic. Emoji are less blatant about it because they can be embedded with text, but they’re equally as valueless a contribution (outside of this specific meta-commentary, obviously)
@[email protected]
Where, 'sactly?
@[email protected]
???. What are you talking about?
Well then you’re contradicting yourself, because you described trolling.
@[email protected]
Why does me keep talking to you make you keep talking like a wannabe anime villain?
You admitted you were deliberately be bad faith and obnoxious to bait a reaction. That’s trolling
@[email protected]
So you were deliberately trolling? Why are you still talking like a friendless loser to me?
Sure. But I was asking you why you talk like a parody of a terminal redditor
@[email protected]
For someone who was just so concerned that I was still talking to you, you sure seem to be interested in keeping this conversation going…
Anyways, no, that wasn’t trolling. The result was pretty forgone and what I said wasn’t intended to provoke, just to serve as an example of the futility of the position they’ve put themselves in.
@[email protected] Because you… keep talking to me?
Anyways no, as I explained that wasn’t trolling; that was the setup that let me make a rather salient point. One you yourself are continuing to validate the effort of highlighting.
@[email protected] (sorry, comment depth)
Exactly, that was the entire point.
Nope, didn’t lie. Keep digging deeper, I guess?
You’re still… doing this? You lied, dude. You knowingly presented a source to support your claim as being public, when it isn’t, and even better you’d never even seen the data. That’s just lying, there’s no way to whine or insult your way out of it. You, are a liar.
It is available to the public, though. Here’s Arnaud Bertrand talking about it. I’ve seen the data. I am not a liar, you seemed to have an extremely particular definition of publicly available and derailed the conversation on those ground alone. Very strange.
Dear god, a twitter link? How quaint, musk must be so proud.Do… you ever actually read your sources?
It had to be given to the author of that thread by the lead researcher, it isn’t available to the public.
The simple truth is that anyone can go and apply for it, and the data is already being spread around. I’m not arguing “in favor” of this system, just that this isn’t some tight-locked info. It’s not that I cannot get it, I already explained that I don’t want to give my personal info to a NATO official’s org.
Secondly, I never implied that the data was representative of anything other than perceptions, I included that in the first comment I referenced it in. I just added that it’s indicative of a strong, comprehensive democracy that perceptions are so high. This isn’t dishonest in the slightest.
I already admitted fault to calling you a liar, when it’s clear that we both aren’t. Not sure why you’re still doing this, it’s pretty clear that the definition bit is the one where we disagree, and you’re insistent that disagreement means I’m a liar. There’s nothing for you to really do, and you just imply that the source is faulty at the end for no reason whatsoever.
@[email protected]
I’m confused - my whole point is that it’s not available for the public to go and get. The idea that “no steps” is required is a strawman - I’ve claimed throughout exactly what you’ve just said. The public needs to be able to get it. Right now, you yourself can’t go and get it, nor can anyone else in this thread that lacks persuasive credentials. So, and I swear to god I’m sincerely asking, how does something with a selective application process meet your idea of publicly available? It’s quite literally bourgeoisie control of information and you’re arguing in favor of that.
And… yes. Perhaps calling you an outright liar was wrong - but you have knowingly misrepresented multiple aspects of this, and stooped to truly dishonest argumentative techniques while doing it. The initial criticism was of you implying a survey was a reflection of the functioning of various governments, not people’s opinions on them. You then went on to insist that your interpretation is within the scope of the study - but you cannot have any idea if that’s true, because you have not read the portion of the study where the scope is explained. You even briefly attempted to reject the very idea of caring about the authors interpretations instead of the data itself, but then later admitted your interpretations are themselves based on some other peoples interpretations of the data anyways.
You came into this like it’s a fight - and it’s stayed that way. You’re in an awful position where cannot admit fault, and you can’t let someone else have the last word, because doing either would truly de-legitimize your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders. You’re trapped in here with me, and it’s starting to feel like it’s all just a considered act, not an honest attempt to engage. And that’s… pretty hollow. I hope I’m wrong there, but I truly doubt that I am.
Have you ever freely accepted fault for a bad source or similar, which is common and happens all the time, or is (sincerely) the concern of de-legitimizing your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders really such a critical point for you?
In general, I make it a point to not run away when pressed. That way, if anyone does continue to read on, it gives my points more legitimacy. I think by this point it’s pretty clear that you and I disagree on what constitutes “publicly available,” I consider anything to be available to the public to go and get to be publicly available, while you take the more extreme view that for something to be publicly available, it must have no steps required to get it, a simple link to a download or viewing must be the shortest distance. I disagree, but I don’t honestly think this disagreement is worth calling either of us liars.
To that end, I suppose I got carried away and returned your energy. Once you declared me a liar and untrustworthy, I wanted to flip that on its head. You called it a “no u” argument, but my point was always clear, you and I both have different views on what publicly available means. The data itself that I referenced and the points I made based on them are widely available from people like the person I linked, so it’s not like the validity of the data is seriously in question.
As for not taking it to DMs, it’s because I know neither of us are likely to be convinced, so the only utility it could possibly have to either of us is being in the open. I don’t really expect to convince you in particular, but discussing things openly has convinced many bystanders to my various points over the years, so it’s keeping true to that.
Just my 2 cents.
I guess I’m curious why you’re still replying too, why is this interesting? I already explained how you pretended “publicly available” has an extremely specific meaning that doesn’t mean accessible to the public.
Either way, though, I don’t see the other people here, so not sure what you mean there.
I don’t think anyone is following this conversation anymore, buddy, so it’s all you. And no, I never lied, but you did.
@[email protected]
Specifically I’m curious about what drives someone to be so invested, why you’d care so much. My earlier antics really make it clear there’s something more complex going on here for you to keep responding in earnest. Seriously, anyone should have just ignored me from there. So why didn’t you? What about this is so important as to be worth putting up with that?
It should be clear by now that your continuing denials or attempts to flip the narrative or just pleasant jibes aren’t landing, but you persist. If you really believe nobody is reading and you genuinely dont care, why not just take it to DMs? Why keep doing this performative thing? What are you getting from this?
(Someone downvoted your last comment and it wasn’t me, and there’s been people bopping through occasionally to up/down vote things. Not tons but there are clearly people watching, if only to read the drama I presume.)
@[email protected]
Honestly I thought the same thing but there’s evidently several people still following this.
I’ve made clear why I’m still here - this is genuinely very interesting for me. But what are you getting out of it? You’re not exactly trying, you just tried to “no u” the argument and that’s at the level of emjoi taunts so there’s that.
I can’t imagine this is fun for you, so again like… why keep it up? Seriously, putting all the bickering aside, why do this?
@[email protected]
Sigh. I know you have no choice but to deny it, but you really could be the bigger person and walk away. I dislike unrepentant liars, but there’s no real hard feelings here - and it’s not going to damage your reputation if you just leave. You’re giving me the power to dictate this by demonstrating how very important it is to you, and I don’t even particularly enjoy it.
Seriously, why do you care so much about getting the last word and being right? Is “losing” a comment thread even really a concept outside of reddit, and if not… what’s the point of all this for you?
Looking forward to the next message though.
I did not misrepresent the study, and I read the relevant bits. You proceeded to become a debate pervert about what you personally consider to be the definition of “publicly accessible,” even though the public absolutely can and does access it. It’s just silly and terminally online.
@[email protected]
Sure, but I think I’ve well established my claims - you misrepresented a study you’d never read, lied about it and then had to save face when I called you out. I’m just reiterating those points, I haven’t brought anything new in ages.
Seriously, I’ve already demonstrated that I can say essentially whatever and you’ll still come back at me with denials, deflection and straight lies (if the public can’t access something, it’s not publicly accessible. Just go access it yourself - it’s that simple). I openly did a sing-song voice with emoji and you still came back, treating it like it was worth your time.
You’ve dignified that slop with your responses. While it’s well established that you’ve lied and are trying to take it back, and yet you’re still here, doing this.
I’ve given you multiple opportunities to leave with most of your dignity intact and yet you don’t take them, and that’s perplexing. Why are you still here? What do you gain from this?
I could be all smug and go on about this being fun for me or whatever, but dropping the act for a second: it’s genuinely interesting to watch you doing this. I seriously don’t know why you’re persisting. One person accusing you of being a liar that misrepresented a source once isn’t going to harm you to just… leave alone.
But… you’ll still be coming back.
The public can access the material, they just have to request it. It isn’t being withheld from people, or locked behind paywalls. The author of the thread pushed people to go and check it out by doing so. It’s a bit odd to say I’m insistent on getting the last word, when you continue to reply and continue to make claims and ask questions.
@[email protected]
(Okay your insistence on getting the last word is becoming concerning. Do you wanna take this to DMs? Otherwise it’s gonna start getting silly.)
“I can’t give out my email to a NATO run organization” has gotta be the lamest… they already have it. Come on with this, you have to know how transparent that excuse is.
“Publicly available” means available to the the public. It isn’t - you can’t get it, and you’re the public. The author of your twitter thread had to be given it. It’s not publicly available. This isn’t some abstract definition like you’re trying to imply, it’s just what the words themselves mean. Ya did a shit thing buddy, and then piled lies and lame excuses up on top to cover for it instead of just admitting to a single mistake. It’s sad.
(also lmao, got banned from five dead comms by one butthurt mod, and a bunch of comms by automod that was promptly reversed, you really got me there. Let’s just take a look at your moderation his-- oh dear god.)
Why are you continuing this? I don’t want to provide my email to an org run by a NATO official. That doesn’t mean people cannot get access to it, and your insistence that this means it is not available to the public is silly. I never said it was “publicly available without requesting it,” you have an extreme fixation on your specific interpretation of what publicly available means. It’s no wonder you were banned from many communities for being a troll/sealion.
Oo hey comment depth!
@[email protected] How cute you’re still trying this. Anyways, if it’s publicly available, please go download and read it. Until then, I mean… guess you’re not part of the public? Seems preeetty clear u liar.
It did not have to be given to the author, and as the thread states at the end, it’s free to download after requesting it.
This is silly on your part.