I’m responding to the entire comment. The fact that you felt his minor pushback on the dozens of non-stop whoppers Trump told is relevant to anything is astounding.
I admit that I extrapolated a bit, but when you mention the pushback and completely omit the dozens of lies that received no pushback, that is open to some level of interpretation.
Correct. My whole point with the comment is that Rogan is susceptible to bullshit, and that it’s a bad thing. I added in a caveat in the middle of my comment that I don’t agree with Rogan hate, and explained why, but my whole point is that Joe is way too gullible.
You don’t have to hoist the we-found-an-enemy flag quite so enthusiastically whenever someone says something that might be taken as something you’ve nominated as an official enemy belief, after you’ve “extrapolated” it.
Joe is gullible because it’s profitable for Joe to be gullible. That’s his schtick, not an incidental personal characteristic. He could afford an entire team of live fact finders if he wanted, but that would hurt his ratings.
If I gave the impression that I see you as an enemy, that was unintentional and I apologize. I do however find your assessment of Rogan to be ridiculously naive.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with “In general I don’t agree with the Rogan hate” makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this “we-found-an-enemy flag” defense you’ve brought up is just… weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That’s just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you’re okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks.
I still don’t get this. Someone disagreed with a fallacious point that I didn’t make, and I pointed out that I didn’t make it. Surely that should be allowed.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
I’m responding to the entire comment. The fact that you felt his minor pushback on the dozens of non-stop whoppers Trump told is relevant to anything is astounding.
Okay. That doesn’t mean you can make things up that I didn’t say, and then “respond” to them.
I admit that I extrapolated a bit, but when you mention the pushback and completely omit the dozens of lies that received no pushback, that is open to some level of interpretation.
Correct. My whole point with the comment is that Rogan is susceptible to bullshit, and that it’s a bad thing. I added in a caveat in the middle of my comment that I don’t agree with Rogan hate, and explained why, but my whole point is that Joe is way too gullible.
You don’t have to hoist the we-found-an-enemy flag quite so enthusiastically whenever someone says something that might be taken as something you’ve nominated as an official enemy belief, after you’ve “extrapolated” it.
Joe is gullible because it’s profitable for Joe to be gullible. That’s his schtick, not an incidental personal characteristic. He could afford an entire team of live fact finders if he wanted, but that would hurt his ratings.
If I gave the impression that I see you as an enemy, that was unintentional and I apologize. I do however find your assessment of Rogan to be ridiculously naive.
Tbh your second paragraph being longer and starting with “In general I don’t agree with the Rogan hate” makes it sound very much NOT like a caveat but rather the main point of your comment.
Now this “we-found-an-enemy flag” defense you’ve brought up is just… weird. Someone disagrees with a falacious point that you tried to make, and so you accuse them of being reductionistic and making ad hominem attacks. That’s just not what happened dude. If you want to argue your point, do it, but as a matter of fact you clearly indicated that you’re okay with what little push back he does give, whereas you did not make it clear that you think him being easily misled is a bad thing.
I don’t mean for this to sound rude, but I think that you should work better on articulating the points you’re trying to make, and taking it less personally/antagonistically when someone disagrees with you.
I still don’t get this. Someone disagreed with a fallacious point that I didn’t make, and I pointed out that I didn’t make it. Surely that should be allowed.
Yeah, maybe so, this one is valid I think.