Misrepresenting what someone says is a textbook example of bad faith so doing that in a discussion about bad faith is ironic to say the least. What he actually thinks is unrelated to this discussion as it's about what he said. You'd call people out for twisting your words so hold yourself to the same standards.
Opinionhaver
joined 11 months ago
What else do I need to know about them?
That people identify on the political right outside of US as well?
Speaking of bad faith..
Yes, and just like Trump, I'm not speaking of the white nationalists and nazies.
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
“The right” consists of individuals, just like “the left” does - and there’s plenty of bad faith to be found on both sides.
People often accuse me of being a troll because I tend to voice views that are unpopular on this platform. Personally, I just don’t see any point in talking about things we all already agree on. I’d much rather try to change the views of those I disagree with - or have them try to change mine.
Not since I stopped posting on .ml communities
It’s just as much a left-wing echo chamber as Truth Social is a right-wing one - and that’s a problem in both cases. Some might say it’s fine because we’re on the right side of history and they’re not, or something along those lines - but the people on Truth Social think the exact same thing. No one’s views ever change that way.
Name for this kind of slogan is a "Thought-terminating clishé"
A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language—often passing as folk wisdom—intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point.
A decent entry-level hardtail.
If there’s a 70 cm tall child standing in front of the vehicle, then in either case the child either would or wouldn’t be visible - there’s effectively no difference. It doesn’t really matter whether you can see 2 or 3 meters more of the road surface from one vehicle or the other. In both cases, the hood height is the same, and that’s what determines the safety in the event of a pedestrian collision.
Also, with a van, the rear visibility is greatly reduced compared to a pickup. You could say that can be compensated for with cameras - but that same argument applies to the front visibility as well.
Let's also keep in mind where this discussion started from: a commenter was taking issue with clean, scuff-free pickups as if a work truck couldn't look like that.
Which points exactly?
Maybe you should re-read my original comment? Because unless you think that Lemmy is not a left wing echo chamber then I have no clue what you're arguing about here exactly.