Quote (fender @ Mar 27 2020 06:07pm)
let me remind you that you were the one abandoning good faith, apparently based on the assumption that i wouldn't disagree with something just because i obviously agree with the other part of your post. again, it was entirely your choice to make this personal - my reply was entirely on topic, inquiring about the worldview underlying your assumptions.
it was also entirely your choice to completely ignore the actual issue (the question if greta thunberg is just a political pawn, as right wing propaganda suggests to dismiss her message, or if she fights for genuinely held and critically questioned beliefs) entirely, and exclusively focus on petty squabbling, acting entitled to having disagreements ignored for the sake of 'compromise', just so you won't join the circlejerk of butthurt idiots, who value their feelings over facts. sorry, but a fragile ego doesn't become a less pathetic reason to abandon debate just because others paved that way already...
and that post is the perfect example for my last point: the problem was never 'disagreeing for the sake of it' - that's a completely fabricated narrative that doesn't even remotely characterise the issue. as you yourself pointed out, we actually ARE in agreement about a significant portion of your post, so that whole statement you just made is pure ego protection.
You're lying of course. I replied to your point multiple times, you unfairly characterized my position, and got butthurt when I pointed out that maybe nobody likes you because of this sort of posting style. The "fragile ego" stuff is just silly projection.
I don't know, maybe I could just make boring Nazi jokes. I'm actually trying to be helpful by telling you that you come across as a prick. Maybe there's some cultural disconnect behind it I'm not aware of.