Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.
For someone who was just so concerned that I was still talking to you, you sure seem to be interested in keeping this conversation going…
Anyways, no, that wasn’t trolling. The result was pretty forgone and what I said wasn’t intended to provoke, just to serve as an example of the futility of the position they’ve put themselves in.
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml Because you… keep talking to me?
Anyways no, as I explained that wasn’t trolling; that was the setup that let me make a rather salient point. One you yourself are continuing to validate the effort of highlighting.
I’m confused - my whole point is that it’s not available for the public to go and get. The idea that “no steps” is required is a strawman - I’ve claimed throughout exactly what you’ve just said. The public needs to be able to get it. Right now, you yourself can’t go and get it, nor can anyone else in this thread that lacks persuasive credentials. So, and I swear to god I’m sincerely asking, how does something with a selective application process meet your idea of publicly available? It’s quite literally bourgeoisie control of information and you’re arguing in favor of that.
And… yes. Perhaps calling you an outright liar was wrong - but you have knowingly misrepresented multiple aspects of this, and stooped to truly dishonest argumentative techniques while doing it. The initial criticism was of you implying a survey was a reflection of the functioning of various governments, not people’s opinions on them. You then went on to insist that your interpretation is within the scope of the study - but you cannot have any idea if that’s true, because you have not read the portion of the study where the scope is explained. You even briefly attempted to reject the very idea of caring about the authors interpretations instead of the data itself, but then later admitted your interpretations are themselves based on some other peoples interpretations of the data anyways.
You came into this like it’s a fight - and it’s stayed that way. You’re in an awful position where cannot admit fault, and you can’t let someone else have the last word, because doing either would truly de-legitimize your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders. You’re trapped in here with me, and it’s starting to feel like it’s all just a considered act, not an honest attempt to engage. And that’s… pretty hollow. I hope I’m wrong there, but I truly doubt that I am.
Have you ever freely accepted fault for a bad source or similar, which is common and happens all the time, or is (sincerely) the concern of de-legitimizing your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders really such a critical point for you?
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml (sorry, comment depth)
Exactly, that was the entire point.
Specifically I’m curious about what drives someone to be so invested, why you’d care so much. My earlier antics really make it clear there’s something more complex going on here for you to keep responding in earnest. Seriously, anyone should have just ignored me from there. So why didn’t you? What about this is so important as to be worth putting up with that?
It should be clear by now that your continuing denials or attempts to flip the narrative or just pleasant jibes aren’t landing, but you persist. If you really believe nobody is reading and you genuinely dont care, why not just take it to DMs? Why keep doing this performative thing? What are you getting from this?
(Someone downvoted your last comment and it wasn’t me, and there’s been people bopping through occasionally to up/down vote things. Not tons but there are clearly people watching, if only to read the drama I presume.)
Honestly I thought the same thing but there’s evidently several people still following this.
I’ve made clear why I’m still here - this is genuinely very interesting for me. But what are you getting out of it? You’re not exactly trying, you just tried to “no u” the argument and that’s at the level of emjoi taunts so there’s that.
I can’t imagine this is fun for you, so again like… why keep it up? Seriously, putting all the bickering aside, why do this?
Sigh. I know you have no choice but to deny it, but you really could be the bigger person and walk away. I dislike unrepentant liars, but there’s no real hard feelings here - and it’s not going to damage your reputation if you just leave. You’re giving me the power to dictate this by demonstrating how very important it is to you, and I don’t even particularly enjoy it.
Seriously, why do you care so much about getting the last word and being right? Is “losing” a comment thread even really a concept outside of reddit, and if not… what’s the point of all this for you?
Looking forward to the next message though.
Sure, but I think I’ve well established my claims - you misrepresented a study you’d never read, lied about it and then had to save face when I called you out. I’m just reiterating those points, I haven’t brought anything new in ages.
Seriously, I’ve already demonstrated that I can say essentially whatever and you’ll still come back at me with denials, deflection and straight lies (if the public can’t access something, it’s not publicly accessible. Just go access it yourself - it’s that simple). I openly did a sing-song voice with emoji and you still came back, treating it like it was worth your time.
You’ve dignified that slop with your responses. While it’s well established that you’ve lied and are trying to take it back, and yet you’re still here, doing this.
I’ve given you multiple opportunities to leave with most of your dignity intact and yet you don’t take them, and that’s perplexing. Why are you still here? What do you gain from this?
I could be all smug and go on about this being fun for me or whatever, but dropping the act for a second: it’s genuinely interesting to watch you doing this. I seriously don’t know why you’re persisting. One person accusing you of being a liar that misrepresented a source once isn’t going to harm you to just… leave alone.
But… you’ll still be coming back.
It is rather effective, isn’t it? I mean, anyone can see what I’m doing there. It’s not subtle.
But, weirdly, they still have to respond. I know that was childish; I mean obviously, that was the whole point. Drawing attention to how they backed themselves into an ideological corner and sceded me the bulk of the social power in this… whatever it is. I can say anything and they still have to respond, and as you point out I’ve very effectively demonstrated that concept.
Seriously, if they were arguing in good faith or were really the bigger person or didn’t care or so on, why are they still talking to someone that mocks them with emoji? It’s the lowest form of engagement - ideas so void of originality that they can be represented as a symbol. And yet, apparently still engaging enough for them to continue making nonsense up to defend themselves.
If this were just this argument, they’d lose nothing by walking away. But they insist on dragging it out, and I’m genuinely curious where they’re trying to go with this.
Comment depth edit: Exactly! Wonderful example, thank you Amnesigenic. Emoji are less blatant about it because they can be embedded with text, but they’re equally as valueless a contribution (outside of this specific meta-commentary, obviously)
(Okay your insistence on getting the last word is becoming concerning. Do you wanna take this to DMs? Otherwise it’s gonna start getting silly.)
“I can’t give out my email to a NATO run organization” has gotta be the lamest… they already have it. Come on with this, you have to know how transparent that excuse is.
“Publicly available” means available to the the public. It isn’t - you can’t get it, and you’re the public. The author of your twitter thread had to be given it. It’s not publicly available. This isn’t some abstract definition like you’re trying to imply, it’s just what the words themselves mean. Ya did a shit thing buddy, and then piled lies and lame excuses up on top to cover for it instead of just admitting to a single mistake. It’s sad.
(also lmao, got banned from five dead comms by one butthurt mod, and a bunch of comms by automod that was promptly reversed, you really got me there. Let’s just take a look at your moderation his-- oh dear god.)
Oo hey comment depth!
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml How cute you’re still trying this. Anyways, if it’s publicly available, please go download and read it. Until then, I mean… guess you’re not part of the public? Seems preeetty clear u liar.
Honestly? When they started trying to make up nonsense to excuse away intentionally misleading people.
I don’t particularly care if someone uses a bad source accidentally, but it does annoy me when someone with a history of using bad sources never ever gets called on it. The source they cite they’ve never read, and they’re trying to claim that “not available to the public without a very selective application that requires a business email, one that they clearly did not pass” is the same thing as “publicly available”. It’s obnoxious.
I was very nice up until that point, but now we’ve reached comment depth and despite admitting that what they did was shitty they’re still trying to spin it like they did nothing wrong. He just used a bad source, right? But he can’t admit that was a mistake. It’s damning behavior, really.
Dear god, a twitter link? How quaint, musk must be so proud.
Do… you ever actually read your sources?
It had to be given to the author of that thread by the lead researcher, it isn’t available to the public.
You’re still… doing this? You lied, dude. You knowingly presented a source to support your claim as being public, when it isn’t, and even better you’d never even seen the data. That’s just lying, there’s no way to whine or insult your way out of it. You, are a liar.
You absolutely 🎶diiiiiiiiiiiiiid🎶 and you are humiliating yourself here.
…
(Hey so I’m gonna go do something more interesting than listen to you recite the narcissist’s prayer, I’ll get back to your next limp accusation of “perverted debate behavior” or not making a point or w/e in a while mmk? mmk.)
(Bye for now!)
Man, go back to the “debate pervert” thing that was way less embarassing for you than honestly calling someone a redditor.
We’ve already established that you’re willing to lie to win an argument, why do you think I’d listen to aaaanything else you’re going to bring to this?
The source I was referring to there was you, and my conclusions about the lack of worth in engaging with you about your ideas was based on how incredibly difficult it was us to finally arrive at you admitting you do not have access to the data you presented as somehow being public.
You straight up lied, and the ideas of liars are pretty much without value in discussion. You have no credibility left to you after doing something so transparently shitty, and it’s embarrassing you’re still acting like I am somehow at fault here for calling you out on what you knew was bullshit.
Why are you pretending there is some way to justify this behavior? You could have easily just admitted fault and been done with it, but you’ve spent hours making it very clear that you knowingly lied about something, just to win an argument on the internet. How fucking pathetic is that?
Please stop, we’ve already established that my points are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I was never going to discuss your nonsense because it’s source is inherently valueless - you can’t even be honest about an infographic (let alone an entire data source you can’t even read), why should I believe you’d argue your ideas in good faith?
@BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
Where, 'sactly?