Here we go again...
> also bear in mind that you initiated by replying to me here, not the other way around.
Yes. That IS how questions work. Typically, the proper etiquette is for the other person to answer.
> if there's anyone i was condescending towards, it was jordan peterson, a full-blown charlatan. then you came in, i think even admitted you didnt know who that is, but defended him as a source anyway?
See the "Ratt" video (above).
> *then* you admitted that you dont know anything about the subject, and also dont watch documentaries on political subjects. and you are upset that i have pointed out what you have simply admitted on your own, which is that you do not actually intend to learn more about this subject.
See the "Ratt" video (above)
>instead youre talking to me about, like, being polite and having a good sporting debate. i dont do debates, i just try to provide good information and if someone tries to spread absolute nonsense, i point that out.
See the "Ratt" video (above)
> think about if this were flipped around. if you recommended a book on a political topic written by someone with literal in-person experience on the subject, and i said 'heh, i dont think so. i dont read books on political topics. too biased. but i think sonic the hedgehog might be a great source on this topic instead,' how would you react to this?
Pretty much the way I'm reacting now, tbh.
> youre telling me you would be polite and kind about this and want to 'engage in debate' with me over this? i would hope not! i'd hope that you would be incredulous and basically explode me out of the sky for saying something so silly.
You want me to be violent and abusive in response to someone saying something dumb? I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.
>
> like im sorry that i'm communicating this to you in a direct and like, harsh way, but at some point youve gotta look in a mirror with this. you cant get upset when someone points out what you yourself willingly admitted.
See the "Ratt" video above
>
> your given reason for not watching the documentary is 'bias,'
So, tell me: when did I imply that I didn't watch the documentary? How would I critique a documentary that I hadn't seen?
> i guess you only learn from unbiased sources, aka ones that are more in line with your preexisting beliefs.
What the... you just ran me over hot coals for (an exaggerated version of) my lack of prior knowledge, then criticize me for not being willing to change beliefs that I don't have?
> unfortunately this is consistent with my expectations for you;
That's just uncalled for.
>... it is sad that literal interviews with people in palestine is 'biased' and 'sensational' to you though.
Well of COURSE Palestinians are gonna have a pro-Palestine bias. If everyone had a pro-Israeli bias, then we wouldn't be having this pseudo-conversation.
The style of the film was sensationalist. The Palestinians in said film were not.
> if im being honest, the idea that that's even possible actually scares me
Well, it should comfort you that your idea is based off of wild speculation.
> also bear in mind that you initiated by replying to me here, not the other way around.
Yes. That IS how questions work. Typically, the proper etiquette is for the other person to answer.
> if there's anyone i was condescending towards, it was jordan peterson, a full-blown charlatan. then you came in, i think even admitted you didnt know who that is, but defended him as a source anyway?
See the "Ratt" video (above).
> *then* you admitted that you dont know anything about the subject, and also dont watch documentaries on political subjects. and you are upset that i have pointed out what you have simply admitted on your own, which is that you do not actually intend to learn more about this subject.
See the "Ratt" video (above)
>instead youre talking to me about, like, being polite and having a good sporting debate. i dont do debates, i just try to provide good information and if someone tries to spread absolute nonsense, i point that out.
See the "Ratt" video (above)
> think about if this were flipped around. if you recommended a book on a political topic written by someone with literal in-person experience on the subject, and i said 'heh, i dont think so. i dont read books on political topics. too biased. but i think sonic the hedgehog might be a great source on this topic instead,' how would you react to this?
Pretty much the way I'm reacting now, tbh.
> youre telling me you would be polite and kind about this and want to 'engage in debate' with me over this? i would hope not! i'd hope that you would be incredulous and basically explode me out of the sky for saying something so silly.
You want me to be violent and abusive in response to someone saying something dumb? I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.
>
> like im sorry that i'm communicating this to you in a direct and like, harsh way, but at some point youve gotta look in a mirror with this. you cant get upset when someone points out what you yourself willingly admitted.
See the "Ratt" video above
>
> your given reason for not watching the documentary is 'bias,'
So, tell me: when did I imply that I didn't watch the documentary? How would I critique a documentary that I hadn't seen?
> i guess you only learn from unbiased sources, aka ones that are more in line with your preexisting beliefs.
What the... you just ran me over hot coals for (an exaggerated version of) my lack of prior knowledge, then criticize me for not being willing to change beliefs that I don't have?
> unfortunately this is consistent with my expectations for you;
That's just uncalled for.
>... it is sad that literal interviews with people in palestine is 'biased' and 'sensational' to you though.
Well of COURSE Palestinians are gonna have a pro-Palestine bias. If everyone had a pro-Israeli bias, then we wouldn't be having this pseudo-conversation.
The style of the film was sensationalist. The Palestinians in said film were not.
> if im being honest, the idea that that's even possible actually scares me
Well, it should comfort you that your idea is based off of wild speculation.