I’m just going off what you’ve said (or failed to). When I asked for clarification you just acted smug in response.
The extent of our exchange was you saying ‘I bet you believe something I think is wrong’ and me saying ‘yeah I still do because of abundant evidence’ and your response was ‘QED’ That’s not making a point, it’s just being a pidgeon shitting on the chessboard
You’re still attempting to shift the narrative to my arguments having been interpersonal - which they never were, and will continue to not be. The only claim to your personal beliefs I have made were ones that you yourself had clearly expressed.
Your ‘argument’ was ‘I bet you believe something I think is wrong’, with no elaboration. you didn’t feel the need to address my point about them both being capitalist states that don’t represent workers interests.
And now we’re back to you attempting to draw me into a personal fight.
You’ve been condescending to me from the start. don’t start acting offended when you get attitude back.
There is nothing here that offends me.
there’s also no points that you’ve made lmao
And you’re free to believe that if you need it.
I’m just going off what you’ve said (or failed to). When I asked for clarification you just acted smug in response.
The extent of our exchange was you saying ‘I bet you believe something I think is wrong’ and me saying ‘yeah I still do because of abundant evidence’ and your response was ‘QED’ That’s not making a point, it’s just being a pidgeon shitting on the chessboard
You’re still attempting to shift the narrative to my arguments having been interpersonal - which they never were, and will continue to not be. The only claim to your personal beliefs I have made were ones that you yourself had clearly expressed.
Your ‘argument’ was ‘I bet you believe something I think is wrong’, with no elaboration. you didn’t feel the need to address my point about them both being capitalist states that don’t represent workers interests.
Calling that ‘eloquent’ was laughable too