The one with no counter-plan, lamenting the scape-goating of American Jews when I’ve seen not a single article actually blaming them for this situation? Yes, but reading the noise doesn’t change the fact that its noise, contributing nothing to addressing the issue.
“Try to keep up” is no more an ad hominem than “did you read the article?”, and your comment labelling mine as an ad hominem is far more so than either. Please go ahead and ban me, if this is how your instance does things.
No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.
In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.
Calling something “perfect” is pretty much praising it. Fuck that noise.
Did you read the article at all?
The one with no counter-plan, lamenting the scape-goating of American Jews when I’ve seen not a single article actually blaming them for this situation? Yes, but reading the noise doesn’t change the fact that its noise, contributing nothing to addressing the issue.
I asked that question because you original comment was ridiculous if you read the article. This separate critique you have is not relevant.
I called it noise the first time too. Nothing seperate. Try to keep up.
Ad hominems are not allowed on Beehaw. If you want to do this sort of thing, do it elsewhere.
“Try to keep up” is no more an ad hominem than “did you read the article?”, and your comment labelling mine as an ad hominem is far more so than either. Please go ahead and ban me, if this is how your instance does things.
No, “did you read the article?” is a valid question. “Try to keep up” is an ad hominem. False equivalence and the sort of bullshit the right pulls.
No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.
In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.