Mispelling words shows lack of knowledge on a topic even when knowledge of that topic is demonstrated. Finding a mispelled word or words instantly decimates your opponents argument. Latching onto this and ignoring the other points discussed is the best course of action.
agreeing with speech means speaking said speech verbatim.
Today you ignored detailed explanations against your argument, after needing three takes just to see that basic tiny error.
You latched onto it. I moved on. You have no counter beyond that, except pretending I must be emotionally compromised after your unimpressive efforts to counter-sneer.
I also immediately acknowledged you aren’t who said that, when you pointed it out. But you plainly think the same thing - as evidenced by, for example, telling me to delete a comment.
I am sorry kid but my argument still stands. Copyright law is still a thing. Did you think you disproved its existence or something?
When a word is mispelled, even mispelled multiple times, it does not summon the thing it is mispelling out of existence. Have you gained object permanence yet? Do you freak out every time you close lemmy, worrying it now vanished?
And yet - there is discussion. Maybe, just maybe, those conversations don’t hinge on ‘but what if nuh-uh?’
I’m not sure you have an argument beyond that. Unless you think attacking my character counts.
You keep shuffling through essentialist insults with no justification, and it’s not impressive or funny or infuriating; it is simply dull. You don’t seem to notice or care that I keep talking about your awful behavior without needing to expand that into some psychological profile. I don’t think you’re incompetent. I think you’re being an asshole. And the key word in that sentence is “being.” As in: whenever you like, you can stop.
You can stop pounding the table for copyright law, like anyone involved supports it, in this context.
You can stop scoffing at expectations that this leftist-adjacent site, with rampant civil disobedience, would be expected to tolerate… tangential discussion of an external website containing PDFs. Nonfiction papers ostensibly available to any university student. A subject, in fact, kind of important to the history of reddit, in a way that is a big reason Lemmy came to exist.
You can obviously stop trying to land hits like I give two fucks for your opinion of me personally. Ask nicely and I’ll insult myself more accurately and more damningly than you can apparently manage. I’d do it even if we had an audience. We do not. Which makes the ineffectual troll behavior all the more disappointing.
You can stop insisting you have a rock-solid point besides, and then failing to distinguish it in any way from gesturing loosely toward the laaaw and assuming that justifies erasing this tiny defiant forum while other similar defiance remains prominent.
So, you’re actually having an issue with my statement that US copyright law exists? Ok. Now you’re trolling. This was my only argument and I had a link to back it up.
Copyright laws exist. No kidding. What next? What’s the rest of your point?
People saying they shouldn’t exist, are not ignorant.
People saying they don’t care, are not ignorant.
Neither position is challenged by some rando parroting ‘but laws.’ Do you understand that laws can be changed? Do you understand how and why that starts? Do you speak English?
When did I say the word “toxicity”? I think you are mixing me up with another commenter.
Right, sorry, you just agreed with them. That’s totally different.
TIL:
Got any more? These are quite good.
Today you ignored detailed explanations against your argument, after needing three takes just to see that basic tiny error.
You latched onto it. I moved on. You have no counter beyond that, except pretending I must be emotionally compromised after your unimpressive efforts to counter-sneer.
I also immediately acknowledged you aren’t who said that, when you pointed it out. But you plainly think the same thing - as evidenced by, for example, telling me to delete a comment.
I wish you cared what words mean.
I am sorry kid but my argument still stands. Copyright law is still a thing. Did you think you disproved its existence or something?
When a word is mispelled, even mispelled multiple times, it does not summon the thing it is mispelling out of existence. Have you gained object permanence yet? Do you freak out every time you close lemmy, worrying it now vanished?
To the surprise of literally nobody.
And yet - there is discussion. Maybe, just maybe, those conversations don’t hinge on ‘but what if nuh-uh?’
I’m not sure you have an argument beyond that. Unless you think attacking my character counts.
You keep shuffling through essentialist insults with no justification, and it’s not impressive or funny or infuriating; it is simply dull. You don’t seem to notice or care that I keep talking about your awful behavior without needing to expand that into some psychological profile. I don’t think you’re incompetent. I think you’re being an asshole. And the key word in that sentence is “being.” As in: whenever you like, you can stop.
You can stop pounding the table for copyright law, like anyone involved supports it, in this context.
You can stop scoffing at expectations that this leftist-adjacent site, with rampant civil disobedience, would be expected to tolerate… tangential discussion of an external website containing PDFs. Nonfiction papers ostensibly available to any university student. A subject, in fact, kind of important to the history of reddit, in a way that is a big reason Lemmy came to exist.
You can obviously stop trying to land hits like I give two fucks for your opinion of me personally. Ask nicely and I’ll insult myself more accurately and more damningly than you can apparently manage. I’d do it even if we had an audience. We do not. Which makes the ineffectual troll behavior all the more disappointing.
You can stop insisting you have a rock-solid point besides, and then failing to distinguish it in any way from gesturing loosely toward the laaaw and assuming that justifies erasing this tiny defiant forum while other similar defiance remains prominent.
But I’m gonna bet you won’t.
So, you’re actually having an issue with my statement that US copyright law exists? Ok. Now you’re trolling. This was my only argument and I had a link to back it up.
If your only argument is acknowledged in the first sentence, maybe you never understood the conversation.
Copyright laws exist. No kidding. What next? What’s the rest of your point?
People saying they shouldn’t exist, are not ignorant.
People saying they don’t care, are not ignorant.
Neither position is challenged by some rando parroting ‘but laws.’ Do you understand that laws can be changed? Do you understand how and why that starts? Do you speak English?
I didn’t have an argument, bro. Your argument was that I didn’t know anything about the topic because I mispelled it.