Argentina's Trump bound for Presidency?

[Justafan]

This could easily be a complete disaster but I'm glad people are least considering possibilities.  I think it does us all a disservice to make assumptions based on visceral reactions and media reports. 

[reo]

This is the exact same shit. Just a different decade and a different country. A certain segment of the population is easily emotionally manipulated. 

 

First you have to understand why propaganda works. The first part is bc of people's inability to think rationally when they're emotional. Propaganda starts by initiating an emotional response. That immediately lowers some people's ability to logically identify flaws in lies or misrepresentations that they are fed. This essentially leads them to believe obviously stupid shit.

 

Conservatives are more susceptible to this bc of how their brains are structured. 

 

 

 

Wrapped into that is then Dunning-Kruger Effect where people who know very little about a topic tend to feel the most confident in that topic. So they're more likely to hold onto the lies that they were fed by that propaganda. 

 

And then when you start arguing with them, the Mandela effect kicks in where their memory of the argument is faulty and they only really remember their arguments in support of their beliefs and they forget the parts which were debunked and proven wrong. Anyone on this message board who has had an argument with someone and debunked one of their talking points and have the EXACT same debunked talking point come back up the very next day has experienced this. The person you're arguing with doesn't remember that it was debunked. They only remember their own points.

 

And then at that point it stops being a belief and becomes part of their identity and they hold onto it even more bc its who they are, not just what they believe. It becomes tribal. Defend the home team. 

 

ConMen throughout history have seen this phenomenon and used it to get into power. 

 

One of the most notable was Mussolini in Italy. He actually ran a newspaper and saw that he could start to manipulate the populace with the above described method and used it to get into power and take over the government of Italy. He was probably the most like Trump. Amoral con man who just saw an opportunity to gain power and used it. 

 

Hitler watched Mussolini and famously copied him in both tone and stature to do the exact same thing in Germany. But he was antisemitic and had bigger designs. 

 

Now comes Putin. Putin is a spymaster and his main method is influence campaigns. He's used the same techniques as both Mussolini and Hitler to get power. Then he started exporting it to different countries. He'd use his propaganda to help other dictators get into power figuring those dictator would then be more inclined to be friendly if not completely subservient to Russia. He did this in Belarus, Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and multiple other countries. Personally I think he probably helped Xi. And then when Hilary came along and said things about Russia's elections, he sought out Trump and did the exact same thing in the US. And Trump, being a mini-Mussolini con man, saw the same marks ripe for manipulation as every con man dictator for the past 100 years.

 

 

So when I see this guy in Argentina being connected to Putin and compared to Trump... I immediately just see another Putin backed right wing dictator wannabe.

 

But maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Edited November 24, 2023 by reo

[Starkiller]

When times are bad economically, people tend to want to change their government. It’s less about why candidate X is better/different than candidate Y. They just want a change.

 

That's a lot of how Hitler got elected. That and finding scapegoats to blame for people's troubles who they could easily demonize.

[reo]

18 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

When times are bad economically, people tend to want to change their government. It’s less about why candidate X is better/different than candidate Y. They just want a change.

 

That's a lot of how Hitler got elected. That and finding scapegoats to blame for people's troubles who they could easily demonize.

 

This is an overly simplistic view of how it has worked. You're not wrong. But it overly simplifies the dynamics of what's happened in the past and the mechanics of it happening. 

 

Mussolini was one of the first who identify how to do it. Hitler studied him and copied him. So has Putin and putin has exported it in part of his global influence campaign to increase Russian influence around the globe.

Edited November 24, 2023 by reo

[reo]

27 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

When times are bad economically, people tend to want to change their government. It’s less about why candidate X is better/different than candidate Y. They just want a change.

 

That's a lot of how Hitler got elected. That and finding scapegoats to blame for people's troubles who they could easily demonize.

 

To further break down why I'm saying it's overly simplistic. 

 

Taking the point of giving them someone to blame. Why do they believe it. First they believe the lies from the propaganda bc of this:

 

39 minutes ago, reo said:

First you have to understand why propaganda works. The first part is bc of people's inability to think rationally when they're emotional. Propaganda starts by initiating an emotional response. That immediately lowers some people's ability to logically identify flaws in lies or misrepresentations that they are fed. This essentially leads them to believe obviously stupid shit.

 

Conservatives are more susceptible to this bc of how their brains are structured. 

 

 

 

They believe they're experts in immigration and crime b/c of this:

 

39 minutes ago, reo said:

Wrapped into that is then Dunning-Kruger Effect where people who know very little about a topic tend to feel the most confident in that topic. So they're more likely to hold onto the lies that they were fed by that propaganda. 

 

Then to add to it, the propaganda taps into the tribal nature and it becomes this:

 

39 minutes ago, reo said:

And then at that point it stops being a belief and becomes part of their identity and they hold onto it even more bc its who they are, not just what they believe. It becomes tribal. Defend the home team. 

 

 

[Justafan]

The argument oversimplifies the complex factors that contribute to the rise of populism and authoritarianism. There are a ton of historical, political, economic, and social conditions that are very different for each of the situations, countries, and time periods discussed. While emotional manipulation certainly plays a role, it is not the sole or most important factor for any of the men described or their followers.

 

Reo assumes a clear distinction between "rational" and "emotional" thinking. This distinction is often blurred in the real world, and people are capable of making both rational and emotional decisions. Emotions can sometimes be a valuable source of information, helping us to identify potential threats or opportunities. It is ludicrous and insulting - almost to the point of hate and bigotry - to suggest that liberals make rational decisions while people who support conservative government are only capable of thinking emotionally. 

 

The argument suggests that conservatives are more susceptible to emotional manipulation than liberals. This is a generalization that is not supported by evidence. Research has shown that people of all political persuasions are susceptible to bias and manipulation.  In fact, I would argue that this post is a symptom of the exact sort of thinking you are complaining is prevalent on the other side. 

 

Everyone on here always likes to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect, but they do so in a misleading way.  You suggest that people who are confident in their beliefs are necessarily ignorant. This is not the case. Confidence can be a sign of knowledge and expertise. Hell, liberals talk this way all the time and present themselves as "experts" often about things they don't really understand.

 

You describe the Mandela effect as a memory error, but it is more accurately described as a phenomenon of social memory. The Mandela effect occurs when a large group shares a false memory of an event or fact. This can happen for various reasons, such as media coverage or social interaction, but not in the way you described it here, where an individual either chose not to pay attention or failed to grasp a point because they were too busy trying to build their narrative actually to listen.  That's just selective listening.

 

You suggest that people's beliefs are determined by their identity rather than vice versa. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. People's beliefs can shape their identity, and their identity can also influence their beliefs. However, it is important to recognize that people's beliefs are not always fixed or immutable. They can change over time in response to new information and experiences.

 

Lastly, you draw a parallel between Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Milei, and Trump, implying that they are all the same. While these leaders share some similarities, they also have important differences. Milei wants to move away from China and Russia, by the way. Here's an article from just four days ago where he says he wants to move away from ties with Putin, supports Ukraine, and sees the US and Israel as Argentina's strongest allies. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/kremlin-notes-argentina-president-elect-mileis-comments-russia-hopes-good-ties-2023-11-20/. Perhaps if one actually bothered looking at the logical conclusions of the words that the person is actually saying instead of having an emotional reaction to the media story you were told, you could discern. To suggest that they are all simply "con men" is to overlook the complex historical and political contexts in which they emerged. To suggest he's just "Another one" before even having a chance in office is ignorant. 

 

In conclusion, the argument that "This is the exact same shit. Just a different decade and a different country" is an oversimplification that does not adequately account for the complex factors that contribute to the rise of populism and authoritarianism. You're just making sweeping generalizations about people's susceptibility to emotional manipulation or their ability to think rationally. Perhaps, instead, we should focus on understanding the specific factors involved in a specific situation and judging a person based on what they actually are doing, saying, and interacting with people instead of fitting them in the dictator box and assuming you know everything you need to about them.  That's lazy, and it's the epitome of arrogant stupidity that runs rampant on this board. 

[Justafan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-24/wall-street-cheers-as-milei-swaps-dollarization-for-macri-brass

 

Already pivoting away from some of the more dramatic proposals from the campaign.  Politics. 

[reo]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

The argument oversimplifies the complex factors that contribute to the rise of populism and authoritarianism. There are a ton of historical, political, economic, and social conditions that are very different for each of the situations, countries, and time periods discussed. While emotional manipulation certainly plays a role, it is not the sole or most important factor for any of the men described or their followers.

 

None of this refutes the point that was being made. I have to assume you either didn't get the point or you're talking about a tangential point. The specifics of the political, economic and social conditions at the rise of Mussolini, Hitler and Putin are immaterial to the point being made. The point was to highlight the use of propaganda and how it was used and why it works. The specific areas they targeted w/ the propaganda to create their passionate base isn't the point b/c that can vary wildly.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

Reo assumes a clear distinction between "rational" and "emotional" thinking. This distinction is often blurred in the real world, and people are capable of making both rational and emotional decisions. Emotions can sometimes be a valuable source of information, helping us to identify potential threats or opportunities.

 

I'm not making any distinction between "rational and emotional thinking". There's rational thought and then there's emotional reaction. "Emotional thinking" isn't a thing. Studies show that emotion can inhibit rational thought. That's the point. And that's not to say emotional responses to things don't have their purpose. But part of how propaganda works is that it elicits an emotional response in order to inhibit rational thought. It's intentional. And that's another point.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

It is ludicrous and insulting - almost to the point of hate and bigotry -to suggest that liberals make rational decisions while people who support conservative government are only capable of thinking emotionally. 

 

Studies are showing that there very well could be significant differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. But it'd be no where near as extreme as you're suggesting. No one is suggesting that either are all emotional or all rational. You seem upset. Maybe take a second and read that again. Don't let your emotional state impact your ability to read this paragraph and understand what's actually being said.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

 

To be clear, that's not to say one is inherently better than the other... just that there seems to be a very real difference.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

The argument suggests that conservatives are more susceptible to emotional manipulation than liberals.

 

Yes.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

This is a generalization that is not supported by evidence.

 

Actually it is.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

Research has shown that people of all political persuasions are susceptible to bias and manipulation.

 

Yes. There are different types of manipulation and bias. It's not all the type being discussed here. This doesn't negate the point.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

Everyone on here always likes to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect, but they do so in a misleading way.  You suggest that people who are confident in their beliefs are necessarily ignorant. This is not the case. Confidence can be a sign of knowledge and expertise.

 

Again. This is an extreme version. You seem to like thinking in extremes. No one is suggesting that all "people who are confident in their beliefs are necessarily ignorant". But a lot around here who think they're experts are really just underthinking it and don't understand the depths of a topic.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

Hell, liberals talk this way all the time and present themselves as "experts" often about things they don't really understand.

 

I think this is an inference on your part and not something that's intentional. Personally, I'll never claim to be an expert on any topic on this board. 

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 

You describe the Mandela effect as a memory error, but it is more accurately described as a phenomenon of social memory. The Mandela effect occurs when a large group shares a false memory of an event or fact. This can happen for various reasons, such as media coverage or social interaction,

 

It's like how a lot of people remember the famous Star Wars quote "Luke, I am your father." When Vader never actually said that. The actual line is "No, I am your father."

 

Whether it's specifically the Mandela effect or not is really immaterial to the point. It's a false memory phenomenon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

but not in the way you described it here, where an individual either chose not to pay attention or failed to grasp a point because they were too busy trying to build their narrative actually to listen.  That's just selective listening.

 

The point is that it's not about choosing to pay attention or not. And it's not about failing to grasp a point. It's about how memory works and that a lot of people in these conversations create false memories and remember them going differently than they actually went. It's not that they just didn't pay attention. It's a memory phenomenon. 

 

I've seen "debates" with Flat Earthers where every single point they made was thoroughly debunked and showed to be flat out wrong or lies... and them come out of it thinking they had some how won the debate b/c they remembered it differently.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

You suggest that people's beliefs are determined by their identity rather than vice versa. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. People's beliefs can shape their identity, and their identity can also influence their beliefs. However, it is important to recognize that people's beliefs are not always fixed or immutable. They can change over time in response to new information and experiences.

 

Again. You're missing the point. It's not about what comes first. It's about what happens when a belief becomes an identity. Take Flat Earthers as an example. Once they belief the lies of the FE society and fully become one.. it becomes part of their identity and then it becomes even harder for them to give up those beliefs. It's similar to how cults work in general.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

Lastly, you draw a parallel between Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Milei, and Trump, implying that they are all the same.

 

 

Mussolini, Hitler, Putin and Trump all have very clear similarities just as students are very similar to their teachers. But yes, they all have important differences as well... just as students can have differences from their teachers. Hitler learned from Mussolini. He studied him and how he manipulated people and he mimicked those techniques. That's an historical fact. Putin uses very similar techniques. The assumption is that he has studied them as well. As in turn Trump has a lot of similarities to Putin especially in how he treated the media and people's trust in it. And his use of repeated phrases and lies to induce false memories and overwhelm fact checkers and the media.

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

 To suggest that they are all simply "con men"

 

Mussolini, Hitler, Putin and Trump were/are all conmen, yes. 

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

In conclusion, the argument that "This is the exact same shit. Just a different decade and a different country" is an oversimplification that does not adequately account for the complex factors that contribute to the rise of populism and authoritarianism.

 

This is a vague statement... saying a point is an oversimplification b/c something is complex w/o actually getting into any of those complex factors and how they refute the point being made. I'm assuming it's due to a misunderstanding of the point being made. 

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

You're just making sweeping generalizations about people's susceptibility to emotional manipulation or their ability to think rationally.

 

yes but calling it "emotional manipulation" is probably wrong as there are different kinds of emotional manipulation. 

 

On 11/24/2023 at 4:29 PM, Justafan said:

Perhaps, instead, we should focus on understanding the specific factors involved in a specific situation and judging a person based on what they actually are doing, saying, and interacting with people instead of fitting them in the dictator box and assuming you know everything you need to about them.  That's lazy, and it's the epitome of arrogant stupidity that runs rampant on this board. 

 

This too misses the point of the topic but.. ok?

Edited November 27, 2023 by reo

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, reo said:

 

None of this refutes the point that was being made. I have to assume you either didn't get the point or you're talking about a tangential point. The specifics of the political, economic and social conditions at the rise of Mussolini, Hitler and Putin are immaterial to the point being made. The point was to highlight the use of propaganda and how it was used and why it works. The specific areas they targeted w/ the propaganda to create their passionate base isn't the point b/c that can vary wildly.

 

 

I'm not making any distinction between "rational and emotional thinking". There's rational thought and then there's emotional reaction. "Emotional thinking" isn't a thing. Studies show that emotion can inhibit rational thought. That's the point. And that's not to say emotional responses to things don't have their purpose. But part of how propaganda works is that it elicits an emotional response in order to inhibit rational thought. It's intentional. And that's another point.

 

 

Studies are showing that there very well could be significant differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. But it'd be no where near as extreme as you're suggesting. No one is suggesting that either are all emotional or all rational. You seem upset. Maybe take a second and read that again. Don't let your emotional state impact your ability to read this paragraph and understand what's actually being said.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

 

To be clear, that's not to say one is inherently better than the other... just that there seems to be a very real difference.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Actually it is.

 

 

Yes. There are different types of manipulation and bias. It's not all the type being discussed here. This doesn't negate the point.

 

 

Again. This is an extreme version. You seem to like thinking in extremes. No one is suggesting that all "people who are confident in their beliefs are necessarily ignorant". But a lot around here who think they're experts are really just underthinking it and don't understand the depths of a topic.

 

 

I think this is an inference on your part and not something that's intentional. Personally, I'll never claim to be an expert on any topic on this board. 

 

 

It's like how a lot of people remember the famous Star Wars quote "Luke, I am your father." When Vader never actually said that. The actual line is "No, I am your father."

 

Whether it's specifically the Mandela effect or not is really immaterial to the point. It's a false memory phenomenon.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

 

 

The point is that it's not about choosing to pay attention or not. And it's not about failing to grasp a point. It's about how memory works and that a lot of people in these conversations create false memories and remember them going differently than they actually went. It's not that they just didn't pay attention. It's a memory phenomenon. 

 

I've seen "debates" with Flat Earthers where every single point they made was thoroughly debunked and showed to be flat out wrong or lies... and them come out of it thinking they had some how won the debate b/c they remembered it differently.

 

 

Again. You're missing the point. It's not about what comes first. It's about what happens when a belief becomes an identity. Take Flat Earthers as an example. Once they belief the lies of the FE society and fully become one.. it becomes part of their identity and then it becomes even harder for them to give up those beliefs. It's similar to how cults work in general.

 

 

Mussolini, Hitler, Putin and Trump all have very clear similarities just as students are very similar to their teachers. But yes, they all have important differences as well... just as students can have differences from their teachers. Hitler learned from Mussolini. He studied him and how he manipulated people and he mimicked those techniques. That's an historical fact. Putin uses very similar techniques. The assumption is that he has studied them as well. As in turn Trump has a lot of similarities to Putin especially in how he treated the media and people's trust in it. And his use of repeated phrases and lies to induce false memories and overwhelm fact checkers and the media.

 

 

Mussolini, Hitler, Putin and Trump were/are all conmen, yes. 

 

 

This is a vague statement... saying a point is an oversimplification b/c something is complex w/o actually getting into any of those complex factors and how they refute the point being made. I'm assuming it's due to a misunderstanding of the point being made. 

 

 

yes but calling it "emotional manipulation" is probably wrong as there are different kinds of emotional manipulation. 

 

 

This too misses the point of the topic but.. ok?

Negative cowboy.  You made an incredibly closeminded argument full of hateful rhetoric. I'm not going to disrespect everyone by going line by line again and hogging up the thread, but I'll say this. You need to do some reflection on this because it's full of logical fallacy and disturbing opinions. 

[reo]

4 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Negative cowboy.  You made an incredibly closeminded argument full of hateful rhetoric. I'm not going to disrespect everyone by going line by line again and hogging up the thread, but I'll say this. You need to do some reflection on this because it's full of logical fallacy and disturbing opinions. 

 

Hahaha sure

 

Hateful rhetoric. That's hilarious. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by reo

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, reo said:

 

Hahaha sure

 

Hateful rhetoric. That's hilarious. 

Yes, you threw around words like conmen and compared several leaders that half the country voted for and support to dictators who were responsible for some of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history. You made claims about how conservatives are emotional and susceptible to manipulation while ignoring any counter argument or offering any proof of your assertions. You incorrectly used real scientific principles and psychological phenomenon, but you incorrectly applied them to your argument to fit the narrative you were trying to achieve.

 

I won't convince you because you don't listen to even well-intentioned criticism, and you go back to this "hahaha sure" bs any time someone tries. 

 

Feel free to reflect, or don't. I can't fix all the ignorance in the world, but I can at least point it out for others so hopefully someone reads this, sees what you are, and chooses to be different. 

[reo]

Just now, Justafan said:

Yes, you threw around words like conmen and compared several leaders that half the country voted for and support to dictators who were responsible for some of the greatest crimes against humanity in human history.

 

I compared Trump's authoritarian and manipulative propaganda techniques to them, yes. Do you find that hateful?

 

 

Just now, Justafan said:

 

You made claims about how conservatives are emotional and susceptible to manipulation while ignoring any counter argument or offering any proof of your assertions.

 

What counter argument? I posted this study backing it up. I can post a link to the study if you'd prefer that to a tiktok discussing it.

 

 

Do you find that hateful?

 

 

Just now, Justafan said:

You incorrectly used real scientific principles and psychological phenomenon, but you incorrectly applied them to your argument to fit the narrative you were trying to achieve.

 

How were they incorrectly applied?

 

 

Just now, Justafan said:

I won't convince you because you don't listen to even well-intentioned criticism, and you go back to this "hahaha sure" bs any time someone tries. 

 

I posted a long response to your reply. It was to your refusal comment and amusing claim of "hateful rhetoric" without specifics that got that response. 

 

 

Just now, Justafan said:

Feel free to reflect, or don't. I can't fix all the ignorance in the world, but I can at least point it out for others so hopefully someone reads this, sees what you are, and chooses to be different. 

 

Haha oh? You seem pretty emotional. 

[Justafan]

1 minute ago, reo said:

 

I compared Trump's authoritarian and manipulative propaganda techniques to them, yes. Do you find that hateful?

 

 

 

What counter argument? I posted this study backing it up. I can post a link to the study if you'd prefer that to a tiktok discussing it.

 

 

Do you find that hateful?

 

 

 

How were they incorrectly applied?

 

 

 

I posted a long response to your reply. It was to your refusal comment and amusing claim of "hateful rhetoric" without specifics that got that response. 

 

 

 

Haha oh? You seem pretty emotional. 

I could care less about Trump, but your methods and comparisons are hateful. Absolutely. Your implications are that all of these leaders - and their followers - are the same - if you can't see the hateful rhetoric, it's because you don't want to. 

 

You claim that conservatives are susceptible to manipulation, and you post an article as evidence - except the article says no such thing.  It gives examples of both liberals and conservatives being susceptible to false memory and easy manipulation. It does talk about differences in thinking, but it points out simply that conservatives appeal to authority, security and predictability while liberals like novelty, complexity, and nuance. 

 

Tik Tok is not a source of anything other than idiots with agendas and opinions.  It's clear from your posts that you spend far too much time on Tik Tok.

 

You keep saying I sound emotional.  It's text. You have no idea how I "sound". You interpret my words a certain way because you want to and are a victim of the very type of thinking you criticize conservatives for.  You wrote a 1000-word essay responding to my post. What does that say about your state of emotions?

 

Last time I'm replying to this nonsense.  Freedom of speech and all that. Do some reflection or don't. You said your piece, and I said mine.  I have neither the patience nor the time to go back and forth with you over and over when you have never once shown an iota of open mindedness on any topic ever. 

[reo]

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

I could care less about Trump, but your methods and comparisons are hateful. Absolutely. Your implications are that all of these leaders - and their followers - are the same - if you can't see the hateful rhetoric, it's because you don't want to. 

 

Are the implications that the followers are the same? Interesting. I hadn't made that conclusion. We can discuss it if you'd like.

 

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

 

You claim that conservatives are susceptible to manipulation, and you post an article as evidence - except the article says no such thing.  It gives examples of both liberals and conservatives being susceptible to false memory and easy manipulation. It does talk about differences in thinking, but it points out simply that conservatives appeal to authority, security and predictability while liberals like novelty, complexity, and nuance. 

 

The conclusion that conservatives are more susceptible to the type of manipulation from this propaganda would be a combination of 2 things.

 

1) There seem to be differences between the brains of conservatives and liberals. 1 being more logical and 1 being more emotional. Keep in mind that this is not saying either is fully one or the other.

2) Propaganda techniques override reason by eliciting an emotional response first.

3) if 1 and 2 are true then by those conclusions that would mean conservatives are more susceptible to that type of propaganda. 

 

Do you see that as hateful?

 

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

 

Tik Tok is not a source of anything other than idiots with agendas and opinions.  It's clear from your posts that you spend far too much time on Tik Tok.

 

She's commenting on the study. I can post a link to the study instead if you prefer. I post tiktoks b/c most people like watching vids over reading articles.

 

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

You keep saying I sound emotional.  It's text. 

 

So you're saying you're not upset and borderline angry? Interesting.

 

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

You wrote a 1000-word essay responding to my post. What does that say about your state of emotions?

 

It means I'm logical and i take your points one by one and respond to them one by one logically and systematically? 

 

1 minute ago, Justafan said:

Last time I'm replying to this nonsense.  Freedom of speech and all that. Do some reflection or don't. You said your piece, and I said mine.  I have neither the patience nor the time to go back and forth with you over and over when you have never once shown an iota of open mindedness on any topic ever. 

 

hahah sure

[WG53]

I'd rather read the article than watch a video