This applies equally well to intraleftist arguments; if you agree with me on the goal but disagree on the tactics, there is no amount of wrong-about-tactics I can be where you're entitled to sling dubious arguments at me and demand I not push back against them.
A lot of people on the left have this idea of, like, "if your counterparty is sufficiently wrong, you can just sling whatever rhetoric you want at them" and if you push back on their rhetoric, they leap to "oh, you must not realize how wrong The Other Side is"
Popular support is a scary and unfamiliar concept to Gender Conservatives, who have to scrape together "protests" out of Nazis and busybodies and think movements are organized at dinner parties.
Weather app screenshot: Wind Advisory. These conditions are expected by 8:00 AM, Friday, March 13. Windy conditions expected around 2PM. Wind gusts are up to 12 mph.
Screenshot of the expanded advisory Description * WHAT...Southwest winds 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 50 mph expected.
“Wind gusts up to 12 mph. Is that really worth an Advisory?”
*clicks*
“Oh. That’s a bit different.”
what the fuck is going on in Sam Altman’s head
No, I keep pointing out that I’m done having the argument. And that I will continue being done having the argument so long as you refuse to acknowledge the reason we were talking about “who posted in this thread first” at all.
Again, I’m not interested in the conversation where you list my behaviors but refuse to acknowledge your own beyond the one you can blow off as “a minor technical error.” You aren’t entitled to any more of my time until you express interest in doing so.
no, i'm just refusing to have a conversation with someone who seems to be in the "if i'm confident my position is correct, then everything i say in defense of it is justified no matter how poorly thought out" mindset.
again. i'm not interested in the original conversation unless you're willing to say something in the ballpark of "yeah, i guess when i made up the rule that whoever enters the conversation second isn't allowed to ask questions, i was letting my emotions get the best of me."
I said way back that this conversation wasn't worth having if you felt entitled to ask me questions without answering mine. You responded with a technical error and a bizarre conversational rule. Admitting the error needs to be the first step of dropping the entitlement, which it hasn't been.
my glass coffin company “remains to be seen” is not doing as well as i thought it would.
That's not what I said. I said that your inability to see any problem with your behavior other than "a tiny technical error" indicates the original conversation isn't worth having until that changes.
promoing this damn record again as music is my sole source of income rn cause I have something wrong with my testicle and cant do my job where i walk 10 miles a day
sure, if anyone comes and reads the conversation and thinks you've acted perfectly other than knowing who commented in this thread first, they'll agree that i'm a bad-faith liar.
i'm fine coming off poorly to that hypothetical person.
I asked you a question, you said I wasn't allowed to ask questions but was obligated to answer yours. After a ton of me pointing that out, you said you "made a mistake" then rolled right back into pressing those same questions.
Why would anyone treat *you* as conversing in good faith?
same reason as i presume you are; i think my position is worth defending.
sometimes that means having a good-faith conversation on merits, but sometimes it means shrugging as the other party exhibits "we've all had someone like that in our mentions before" behavior
I feel fairly confident that if anyone rolls into this thread, sees you replying under me, then sees you asserting that I'm not allowed to ask non-clarifying questions because you were "part of the conversation" earlier in other threads, they'll have reasonable thoughts about who's in good faith.
If you ever want to pick this conversation up with a less “you are obligated to respond to my questions, but not i to yours” attitude, feel free; otherwise i’m done trying to explain that you aren’t entitled to control the flow of conversation like you seem to think you are
again, this thing where you make up rules where you're entitled to treat your position as default and me as needing to defend mine like a witness on the stand is not how conversations work, whether on bluesky or anywhere else
because there's no point in doing so with someone who makes up bizarre rules about which parties in a conversation are or aren't allowed to ask the other to support their statement.
rechecking which one of us appeared in this thread first, i think i'm safe from the attitude that whoever shows up to the conversation later isn't allowed to ask questions of the other.
its always the fucking needle
just a few days ago i was having a PTSD episode about the automattic CEO taking over here, and within MINUTES the needle staff appeared in my replies
they proudly boasted that inflammatory triggering content gets them "the most clicks". fuck them, do not share
i think i'm tiring of the idea that you get to ask me questions but i don't get to ask you questions.
okay let's start with: where did i claim harassment?
so your position is that if i point out that op was listing the ways they think the screenshotted parties are going about things wrong, that shows that I know op isn't saying the people in the screenshot are wrong?
That's a fascinating way to try to resolve a disagreement.
If you're really going to claim the three posts at the start of this thread don't qualify as "explaining all the ways the comments in the screenshot are wrong" then I can see where you'd be led into other strange conclusions too.
The game Night Witches by Jason Morningstar
Alternating again to a physical book (and one I haven’t yet played), Night Witches, a TTRPG about the WWII bomber regiment of Soviet women who ran night missions into Nazi-occupied territory in outdated biplanes.
Three stills from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, featuring Jadzia Dax and the Klingon Kor embracing each other after meeting for the first time in years. Jadzia, being a Trill and host to the Dax symbiote, inherited the memories of Dax's previous host, Curzon, who knew Kor. The dialogue is as follows: Kor: "Curzon, my beloved old friend." Jadzia: "I'm Jadzia now." Kor: "Jadzia, my beloved old friend." This scene in particular is why many fans of the show point to Jadzia as being a trans allegory, and showing her supported in her transition by her friends.
I think it's really funny how I bumped into my old manager from my last job at the grocery store earlier today while I was in full goth girl mode (I was deeply closeted while working there) and she didn't even bat an eye, she was just happy to see me. Truly a real one.
This is possibly not the state to be consuming podcasts containing emotional coming-out stories.
A two part tumblr post from genderfluid-druid hurr hurr I'm a human body hurr hurr I'm gonna solve all my problems using mucus "i require more fluids" well what did you do with the fluids I already gave you. hmm? did you make more mucus with them? you made more mucus with them.
Current state remains
