MAGA

[Dill]

(07-13-2019, 02:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I still don't know what "Fred-twisting" behavior is.  I cannot recall a single post by Fred as opaque and obfuscatory as yours in this thread.
ORLY?  Please point out a post of mine in this thread that is either and we'll have a starting point for a debate. 

Sure. Start with this response to my question about the mysterious "practice" you referenced in your post, #13.

(07-13-2019, 02:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Now reference to an undefined, mysterious "practice" of mine, which involves "inferring in others" and is "advocated" on another thread?  What??
You've never played Tuber Simulator?!

You claimed I "advocated" some "practice" you call "infering" (perhaps you do not know what an "inference" is?) and there was your chance to explain what you were talking about, citing a post, and to show whatever "script" you claim to have flipped.

So what did you do with that chance?  This:

(07-13-2019, 02:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh no, dear Dill.   I'm absolutely not name calling.  Although I can see the appeal for you to paint it as such, I am merely calling you out using specific examples.  You then attempt to turn the conversation away to something it never ways and then claim faux outrage when I don't play along.  I am most sorry to announce that your game has been well and thoroughly seen through.  Please note (and I do mean please, I humbly beg) that I have been unfailingly polite in pointing out your foibles.  I do know you delight in being perceived as persecuted and I do strive to stay civil.  I will not, however, fail to point out hypocrisy and racism in those who point out the speck in their neighbor's eye while ignoring the plank in their own.

As usual, I am trying to turn the conversation towards something definable and measurable. And you have "seen through" the attempt. That is why you are talking about "my game" and "moral courage" and your politeness rather than citing evidence (as opposed to just claiming it exists somewhere) and fitting it to your definition. Won't put up and won't shut up.

A guy who says he won't engage with someone making "racist" statements, but can't seem to explain, exemplify or otherwise establish what he is calling "racism," doesn't get to hang "faux outrage" on others, especially when doing that instead of citing examples of said racism in other's texts and explaining why they fit the definition.

If you can't/won't do that then yes, you are just name calling and then attributing to others your own outrage.  And being obfuscatory.

Stop substituting chatter about others' motives and morality, perceptions of persecution and lack of courage--in short a tally of personal "impressions"--for arguments based upon evidence.

Until you do that, the rest is just air, and not worth any more time.