I reject the idea that politicians are a special class of people. The idea that “politicians” are in any way a separate, or special, or privileged class is the cosmopolitan view, and a deeply toxic one. Your thinking is harmful to society.
There is 0 fucking confusion coming from my end. You are simply obtuse and conflicted.
Me:
You want “celebrities” to be kept separate from “politicians”. That’s the introduction of a special class.
You:
Yes that’s exactly what I want.
Me:
I reject the idea that politicians are a special class of people. The idea that “politicians” are in any way a separate, or special, or privileged class is the cosmopolitan view, and a deeply toxic one. Your thinking is harmful to society.
Part of your mind has been broken and its reflected in your worldview.
I don’t think either @[email protected] or myself are conflicted about their world view. They’ve said it multiple times, and have confirmed that I characterized it accurately.
Me:
You want “celebrities” to be kept separate from “politicians”. That’s the introduction of a special class.
Rigatti:
Yes that’s exactly what I want.
Rigatti could push back on the specifics or add nuance, but they aren’t choosing to. Instead they say I’m “confused”, even though I clarified and they confirmed I characterized their position correctly. The accusation of confusion is a way of deflection of the outcome of their world view. The problem they have is that they don’t like the outcome when the specifics of their world view are well characterized. If they were pushing back on the characterization, the situation would be different. But we’re all in agreement on Rigatti’s position here. Rigatti’s just doesn’t appreciate the inconvenience their position offers them. They want to have it both ways, and that position seems like the reasonable view, but with even a little scratching below the surface, we can find that its deeply problematic. We should not treat politicians (or celebrities or anyone for that matter) as a special class of people to be handled differently.
inferring a world view from one minor political opinion
That’s all they’ve offered. We base analyses on information we have, not information we don’t have. They are more than welcome to clarify.
Either you want politicians to be a special class of people and you don’t want other groups to have access to that role, or you are against that. And the vast majority of the world agrees with Rigatti, that the world of “politics” is for held apart for a special class of people. Its an anti-populist worldview. And I reject that.
it’s not an entirely uncommon political opinion and you’re inferring a world view.
you don’t see the issue with that?
it’s not like they’re saying no one but politicians should run for office.
they dont think people famous for being wealthy or building brands is so great for promoting policy.
You want “celebrities” to be kept separate from “politicians”. That’s the introduction of a special class.
Yes that’s exactly what I want. Your reading comprehension is truly above world class, a special class if you will.
I reject the idea that politicians are a special class of people. The idea that “politicians” are in any way a separate, or special, or privileged class is the cosmopolitan view, and a deeply toxic one. Your thinking is harmful to society.
You’re still confused and refusing to read what I actually wrote. That’s not what I think.
There is 0 fucking confusion coming from my end. You are simply obtuse and conflicted.
Me:
You:
Me:
Part of your mind has been broken and its reflected in your worldview.
i kinda agree with both of y’all but inferring a world view from one minor political opinion is exactly what @[email protected] is pushing back on.
you assume too much about their premise and are having a strawman argument.
I don’t think either @[email protected] or myself are conflicted about their world view. They’ve said it multiple times, and have confirmed that I characterized it accurately.
Rigatti could push back on the specifics or add nuance, but they aren’t choosing to. Instead they say I’m “confused”, even though I clarified and they confirmed I characterized their position correctly. The accusation of confusion is a way of deflection of the outcome of their world view. The problem they have is that they don’t like the outcome when the specifics of their world view are well characterized. If they were pushing back on the characterization, the situation would be different. But we’re all in agreement on Rigatti’s position here. Rigatti’s just doesn’t appreciate the inconvenience their position offers them. They want to have it both ways, and that position seems like the reasonable view, but with even a little scratching below the surface, we can find that its deeply problematic. We should not treat politicians (or celebrities or anyone for that matter) as a special class of people to be handled differently.
That’s all they’ve offered. We base analyses on information we have, not information we don’t have. They are more than welcome to clarify.
Either you want politicians to be a special class of people and you don’t want other groups to have access to that role, or you are against that. And the vast majority of the world agrees with Rigatti, that the world of “politics” is for held apart for a special class of people. Its an anti-populist worldview. And I reject that.
I like how you keep quoting the part that was, I thought obviously, sarcasm as if it were my entire outlook on life.
it’s not an entirely uncommon political opinion and you’re inferring a world view. you don’t see the issue with that?
it’s not like they’re saying no one but politicians should run for office. they dont think people famous for being wealthy or building brands is so great for promoting policy.
I even said I would prefer working class people to run for office, but they easily glossed over that while repeatedly quoting the sarcastic part.
They’re being needlessly aggressive about it as well. It’s kind of strange. I’m starting to think they’re trolling.