I know what obongo means, don’t know what “other side” discourse you think I’m looking for, but you seem to have made up your mind about what kind of strawman I am, so have fun I guess.
I assumed you were acting like this was a fair and factual criticism of Obamacare, since you responded to someone calling it bullshit by defending fair and factual criticism.
Since you also said you thought Obamacare was a net positive, I assumed you were arguing that we should be open to listening to criticism of things we approve of, or listening to the “other side of the conversation”, and just misunderstood what you were defending.
I really don’t see this as a negative strawman, but I’m quite curious to know what you thought I was arguing against.
All strawmen are negative, if a person (or their argument) needs to be caricatured to be attacked, it shouldn’t be attacked. If it can be attacked and you’re just caricaturing for fun, then you’re diluting the argument and shouldn’t.
Do you think that my description is negative, a caricature, or a strawman now that I’ve said what I was responding to? How was I misrepresenting your opinion by, I thought, assuming positive intent?
That’s not exactly a criticism and more of a dog whistle, as the person you replied to said.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Obongo
Congratulations on not hearing the whistle, but this is not the “other side” discourse you were looking for.
Sounds like he has plenty of free time, and a car, so get a second job. That’s what MAGA wants him to do.
I know what obongo means, don’t know what “other side” discourse you think I’m looking for, but you seem to have made up your mind about what kind of strawman I am, so have fun I guess.
I assumed you were acting like this was a fair and factual criticism of Obamacare, since you responded to someone calling it bullshit by defending fair and factual criticism.
Since you also said you thought Obamacare was a net positive, I assumed you were arguing that we should be open to listening to criticism of things we approve of, or listening to the “other side of the conversation”, and just misunderstood what you were defending.
I really don’t see this as a negative strawman, but I’m quite curious to know what you thought I was arguing against.
All strawmen are negative, if a person (or their argument) needs to be caricatured to be attacked, it shouldn’t be attacked. If it can be attacked and you’re just caricaturing for fun, then you’re diluting the argument and shouldn’t.
Do you think that my description is negative, a caricature, or a strawman now that I’ve said what I was responding to? How was I misrepresenting your opinion by, I thought, assuming positive intent?