who bragged about firing a mortar at civilian targets.
Source?
Oh, fascinating, so now it’s “subtext.”
Alright, well the “subtext” that I’ve been picking up from you is that Graham Platner is a divine being who we should all build temples to and worship. So, I’m going to need you to prove Platner’s divinity, or else you’re clearly full of shit.
You apparently don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman.
And yeah, if you can’t read subtext then it would be hard to have any real media literacy at all.
And if you can’t glean that from the context, then you’re either half-blind or being willfully obtuse.
And if someone can’t glean that you’re asking for temples to be erected to worship Platner as a god, they’re either half-blind or willfully obtuse.
Willfully obtuse it is, thank you for clarifying that.
Recognizing that Platner is a better choice than Susan Collins and we shouldn’t be doing maga’s work for them by tearing apart his campaign isn’t exactly “erecting temples and worshipping,” but go off. Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
Oh, so you’re just illiterate? He didn’t say he lobbed mortar fire at civilian targets. He said he improvised a grenade launcher to return indirect fire to incoming mortar sites. Yours was a wildly inaccurate mischaracterization.
And no, again, you clearly don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you.
Let me break this down for you in the plainest terms:
If Platner loses, Susan Collins wins. Those are your choices. It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party, FPTP system, but we do. So if you’re contributing to the smear campaign against Platner, then you’re basically campaigning for Collins. That’s called subtext, and it says a lot about you that you needed that to be ELI5ed.
Accusing me of eating babies and erecting temples is a strawman. See the difference?
I usually find that discussions are more protective when they focus on things people actually said, and not bullshit that you made up and assigned to them. Whether making up bullshit and putting words in other people’s mouths is called “subtext” or “strawmanning” doesn’t really matter, it’s equally unproductive and bad faith either way.
Source?
You apparently don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman.
And yeah, if you can’t read subtext then it would be hard to have any real media literacy at all.
Willfully obtuse it is, thank you for clarifying that.
Recognizing that Platner is a better choice than Susan Collins and we shouldn’t be doing maga’s work for them by tearing apart his campaign isn’t exactly “erecting temples and worshipping,” but go off. Clearly you want republicans to hold onto their senate majority…
https://xcancel.com/BenMcCombe/status/1982083117709176945
Let me guess, this is also “subtext.” This is such a neat trick. I really don’t think you should eat babies, like you’re subtextually talking about.
Oh, so you’re just illiterate? He didn’t say he lobbed mortar fire at civilian targets. He said he improvised a grenade launcher to return indirect fire to incoming mortar sites. Yours was a wildly inaccurate mischaracterization.
And no, again, you clearly don’t know the difference between subtext and a strawman. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time on you.
Let me break this down for you in the plainest terms:
If Platner loses, Susan Collins wins. Those are your choices. It’s unfortunate that we have a two-party, FPTP system, but we do. So if you’re contributing to the smear campaign against Platner, then you’re basically campaigning for Collins. That’s called subtext, and it says a lot about you that you needed that to be ELI5ed.
Accusing me of eating babies and erecting temples is a strawman. See the difference?
I usually find that discussions are more protective when they focus on things people actually said, and not bullshit that you made up and assigned to them. Whether making up bullshit and putting words in other people’s mouths is called “subtext” or “strawmanning” doesn’t really matter, it’s equally unproductive and bad faith either way.
No, there’s a difference between strawmanning and subtext, and the fact that you refuse to see that tells me all I need to know.
In both cases, you’re just making up bullshit and trying to put it in my mouth. You can quibble over definitions all day long, doesn’t change that.
Subtext is not “making up bullshit” and if you think it’s the same thing then you really are dense.
Then I must be dense. Because you definitely did make up bullshit to assign to me instead of engaging with what I actually said.