• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    29 days ago

    You know what it is, you just don’t have a response so you’re playing dumb.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      I feel like you might be casting your own conceptions as to the basis of my motivations, and they’re a little unfair - if you mean that their point is “martin luther king’s popularity fell between 1965 and 1966” then sure, that’s supported by the above gallup poll. But that’s trivially true, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the use of optics by social movements, and also has nothing to do with how hugely popular king was at the time (which is also supported by the same gallup poll).

      I have no idea what their point is, though. They’ve been trying to, idk, entrap me into saying king wasn’t popular? Which patently wasn’t true, even according to their own sources. So… what? What’re they even trying to argue, because this feels very much like they’re just trying to ‘win’ based on a semantic argument I’ve never ascribed to, after entrenching themselves in a position that the other person never set out or has interest in discussing .

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        29 days ago

        Spare me the wall of bullshit. You know what they meant, you don’t have a response, and you’re playing dumb.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          Bud that is barely two paragraphs, and I substantively respond to both you and them in it.