Comment by AlecSchueler
1 day ago
That account's history is almost entirely left bashing or giving praise to Elon Musk. I'd guess the comment above is part of his ongoing effort to destabilise the British political norms.
1 day ago
That account's history is almost entirely left bashing or giving praise to Elon Musk. I'd guess the comment above is part of his ongoing effort to destabilise the British political norms.
Why do people trawl through a poster's history in attempt to disarm their argument? Surely just addressing it on its own merit is sufficient, no?
Not when the account’s entire purpose is to political troll or glaze a particular Internet celebrity. That kind of bad faith belongs on Reddit.
Schrödinger's comment: you wouldn't know an account's purpose if you did not first trawl its history.
2 replies →
If somebody pisses on your shoe every day, do you just try to reason with them from scratch on the 10th day? Would you introduce yourself first, and inquire as to the reason why they are assuming the position?
I don't understand this perception that it is sacrilegious to look at somebody's posting history to discern any patterns in their behaviour.
No one appears to be pissing on shoes, but a public urination analogy may be fitting here. Should the alleged offender be reprimanded for their obvious behavior, or have their past bladder expressions deeply scrutinized first?
1 reply →
Because we live in a world where people are paid to spread FUD and disinformation especially related to political topics. Meanwhile one only has so much time to address arbitrary arguments. If it looks like the argument is being made for disingenuous purposes then engaging with it is probably a waste of your time.
Thanks for the context haha.
Left bashing is one thing, but someone gicing praise to Elon Musk in 2026 is just mind-blowing to me
[flagged]
The front page of the BBC right now, at the very top, is a large photo of protests in Iran. The headline reports that hospitals are overwhelmed by the regime cracking down on protestors.
The article focuses on first-hand accounts from medics inside Iran, describing the crackdown and casualties. It also contains statements from the Iranian opposition, the UN, US and French presidents and British PM, all critical of Khamenei, with just two mentions of the regime’s official statements.
Also, I just switched to the BBC News TV broadcast. The Iran protests are the lead story: a special report with a focus on the protestors, showing videos shared by them.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9rengvnp9o
You’re welcome to your own opinions but some of your arguments here are trivial to debunk.
Literally the first article on the BBC News homepage is an about Iran with accounts from doctors and others critical of the regime.
This is the exact opposite of what you claimed we’d find.
My recommendation here is: if your research is this sloppy for your most trivial to check argument, then maybe you should spend a little time reviewing your other assumptions and whether you believe them out of faith or through research.
2 replies →