"if you refuse to ____ " is an SJW tell. There you were, existing, having a quiet preference for apples over oranges, and then I barge in and say "if you REFUSE to admit that oranges are superior then ___" >>>
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @sonyaellenmann
It takes as given cultural and ethical norms that AREN'T, and assumes them into existence, and into the null hypothesis, and then it posits that you've had a long conversation where sane peaceful dialogue has been tried and failed. Now you, the criminal, are on your last strike.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @sonyaellenmann
It drops you in the middle of a script as the child, in a parent-child relationship. This other person isn't trying to convince you ; he's arguing that the debate ended long ago. You are the truculent child REFUSING to clean your room.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @sonyaellenmann
my argumentation style is straight on nerd tank. In chess it would be the rook. "I think X. We agree on axiom Y. I advance from a1 to a2, with argument A. I advance from a2 to a3 with argument B. I advance from a3 to a4 with argument C. ... checkmate."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @sonyaellenmann
these SJW tactics are sneak bishop attacks. From out of nowhere you're placed under attack. Your attacked isn't even adjacent. What the hell is going on?!?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
for more on the parent/child framing, check out Games People Play, recommended to me by @maradydd
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.