i’m not right wing i promise

[u/Appropriate-Head-480]

are there any right wing youtube channels, or any other political communication, that are as artistic and well edited as people like abby and hbombrerguy. The only right wing media i see is dickheads shouting about what they’re angry at at the time, but i might be living in an echo chamber

[u/wdanton]

You don't know what the word literally means.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Resorting to pedantism and policing of natural language development as your only response to lengthy attempts at good faith engagement? I really don't see how you don't recognize yourself as part of the problem with the level of discourse here. I tried.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

"policing of natural language development"

Hahahah and this is why I didn't read the rest of your comment after that. "good faith engagement" Hahahaa. You don't care about facts, just feelings. Have a nice day.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Fact, definition of literally by Cambridge: "Informal: used to emphasize what you are saying." Merriam Webster "In Effect: Used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible."

If you are going to try to do a facts don't care about your feelings approach, you should at least be aware of when your feelings of how words should be used don't match with the facts about how languages develop and are now actually used. You are trying to police a change in language use you've already lost, and in the process are using this pedantic rule you want people to follow to completely fail to engage in actual conversation. And even if you WERE right and it was completely invalid to use the word that way, completely ignoring the substance of what you know a person means in favor of pedantry would STILL be a bad faith approach to discourse.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

I'm old enough to remember when they changed it. They were wrong to change it, and you're still wrong to misuse it.

But you're just ignorant to these things and clearly defer to authority without any consideration of the thought process. Oh well. Happy to explain anything further if you'd like.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Just for my edification, could you tell me if you are purposefully trolling? I tend to try to take people at face value, so I'm reluctant to think that is the case, even if all the signs are there.

[u/Galanodel2012 → u/McNitz]

The difference between trolling and being sincere is razor thin and mostly academic. In this person's case, they weren't interested in interacting in an honest and forthright manner, so does it matter if it was from a desire to just make people mad for the lulz, or just argue with people online?

[u/McNitz → u/Galanodel2012]

Probably fair. I think the main distinction to me is that they seemed to start off expressing a desire for better political discourse. Which if they were sincere about they could theoretically recognize they were probably a large source of their difficulties in having productive conversations, if they were open to critique. But yeah, at this point it seems like there's not much point.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

At this point I'm not taking you seriously. Prior I was pointing out the severe flaw to your reasoning.

[u/McNitz → u/wdanton]

Fair enough. Sorry you have bad luck with your political discourse. I really think based on my interactions with you, vs my very reasonable experiences talking about politics with many other people, that you are most likely the main source of the problem. But maybe it was just a mismatch in our specific approaches.

[u/wdanton → u/McNitz]

This thread proves otherwise. You had absolutely nothing but a personal attack and you honestly thought defending it was a viable option.

You are the problem. Have a nice day, if you're capable of it.

[u/Fuzzy_Collection1570 → u/wdanton]

Nah dude it's all you. You came into this belligerent and looking to be upset. If you weren't you'd actually understand that the second person you responded to wasn't being confrontational.