• ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really didn’t claim any support, as I mentioned to someone else it was a “they say this”, “no, it is more accurate to say they say this” situation

    • Sentrovasi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re trying to characterise it as such now, but saying “emphasis on the critical” - that’s your input suggesting that this support had merit. Hardly just saying it’s a different terminology. You’re backpedalling again.

      Regardless, a lot of people have chimed in explaining to you exactly why this is so damaging and how little merit your qualification has. If you’re as uneducated on the whole situation as you seem to be, why are you so unwilling to accept that it’s probably wrong?

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The emphasis on critical was meant to suggest hesitatancy or the acknowledgment of nuance to their actions not necessarily my personal beliefs. I do however believe that NATO had a lot to do with the start of this was as I’ve quite recently discovered since the beginning of this thread.

        As for my argumentative nature, I don’t like when my words are misinterpreted and used to claim things I did not say so it made me instinctually hostile. I also have trouble just letting things rest or ignoring situations. Anyway I’m working on educating myself I just think strawmans are dumb