>>3370290
My god this discussion is becoming absurd.
No, you didn't ask me why I don't call out shills... I gave that information because I felt it was necessary. Why do you think you can dictate what I shall talk about and how I should respond? Are you that narcissistic?
You asked a question with an invalid premise. You asked about the "stereotyped oppositional rhetoric" (which is not even a well-defined term). Why must people conform to YOUR understanding (read: Opinion) of what "stereotyped rhetoric" must be? Why is it stereotyped? What if what I'm trying to do is fight against those stereotypes? You asked a question assuming the consequent, which (ironically, considering >>3370226 is accusing me of using logical fallacies, is in itself a logical fallacy)...
Your demand that I have some sort of "realistic awareness of conditions", is your own rhetoric for "just fall in line and don't try to challenge the dominant paradigm that exists here"... in other words, you want me to just shut up and not post exactly what I posted, because you disagree with it.
That is the long and short of it really.
"I disagree, shut up." except you posted it as a flowery logically flawed screed.
So fuck you... you're in over your head, son. I certainly did "fail to do what other people would do naturally"... other people would naturally shrink from such a word salad filled with bullshit... normal people would have tried to answer a question based on flawed premise. Normal people would be confused by a false dichotomy question, and try to answer in the binary rather than shrugging it off and saying "I reject your false dichotomy, and your false premises, and will engage with you on MY terms, not the bullshit ones you're trying to shoehorn me in to."
Again... fuck you dude, you're SOOOO in over your head.