• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    24 days ago

    Ah, the classic false dichotomy—perfect or devil, no in-between. Convenient oversimplification for someone dodging the actual critique. Standards aren’t about sainthood; they’re about consistency. If you’re going to preach “higher values,” maybe don’t turn a blind eye to the contradictions in your own backyard.

    This isn’t about moral absolutism; it’s about calling out hypocrisy masquerading as virtue. If you can’t handle that without retreating into reductive nonsense, maybe rethink engaging in a debate that demands nuance.

    And while we’re at it, reducing everything to “standards” doesn’t absolve you from addressing the systemic issues behind them. But sure, keep playing the victim of impossible expectations—it’s easier than grappling with inconvenient truths.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        34 days ago

        Oh, the classic “too many words” deflection—because brevity is apparently the hallmark of intellectual rigor now? Sorry if nuance doesn’t fit into your preferred soundbite format, but some ideas require more than a monosyllabic grunt to unpack.

        If you’re allergic to complexity, maybe stick to simpler conversations. But don’t mistake your inability to engage for someone else’s verbosity. Not every argument can be reduced to a meme or a quip, no matter how much you wish it could.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          34 days ago

          I’ve got an incense burner, you know how those work? You need a small ember to create the most smoke, much like how your vapid nonsense conceals the least important, interesting, or, yes, nuanced position this side of Twitter. You think progress doesn’t exist unless we immediately go to your perfect world. No matter how you dress it up we all get exactly what you’re saying.