> just curious if you think that the rhetoric from trump and his followers is not only hurtful, but also incredibly violent.
It was *exactly* at this moment that the old tactics resurfaced.
Instead of just saying "Yes, you're right", a counterfact was brought up to refute OP's original premise. This tactic laid bare how such a conversation like this would end up: With either side just saying "but X said this!", whilst no common ground is established.
chicagobuss was not seeking to establish common ground, instead the goal was to construct a fight & win it.
-----
> We’re so close to understanding each other here. People have validated your experience, and then said hey, we feel it too. Yet when they try to have the same conversation and seek validation of their own experience, you decide that’s the time to shut the conversation down.
Because there was no attempt in a genuine exploration of the original premise.
The *moment* that aliasxneo tried to break down where the insults came from, instead of examining why the sources were engaging in such rhetoric, chicagobuss barged in with a "but X said this!", and proceeded to engage in a fight instead of an examination of the original premise.
The original premise still remains unexamined: Why these circles felt that they could engage in the same tactics as who they hate & not feel repercussions from doing so.
> just curious if you think that the rhetoric from trump and his followers is not only hurtful, but also incredibly violent.
It was *exactly* at this moment that the old tactics resurfaced.
Instead of just saying "Yes, you're right", a counterfact was brought up to refute OP's original premise. This tactic laid bare how such a conversation like this would end up: With either side just saying "but X said this!", whilst no common ground is established.
chicagobuss was not seeking to establish common ground, instead the goal was to construct a fight & win it.
-----
> We’re so close to understanding each other here. People have validated your experience, and then said hey, we feel it too. Yet when they try to have the same conversation and seek validation of their own experience, you decide that’s the time to shut the conversation down.
Because there was no attempt in a genuine exploration of the original premise.
The *moment* that aliasxneo tried to break down where the insults came from, instead of examining why the sources were engaging in such rhetoric, chicagobuss barged in with a "but X said this!", and proceeded to engage in a fight instead of an examination of the original premise.
The original premise still remains unexamined: Why these circles felt that they could engage in the same tactics as who they hate & not feel repercussions from doing so.