Stein's disqualification stems from a purported withdrawal letter from her running mate -- a letter Stein's campaign claims was unauthorized and had a forged signature.
You are changing the topic. Comment OP didn’t say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
The poster said, “Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith.”
I’ve explained how I respond.
And since the commenter suggested I was posting “propaganda,” I simply pointed out that I didn’t write the article. It was shared from a reputable news source, not produced by me. Unless he believes that the news organization itself produces propaganda, then his argument doesn’t hold up.
The op said “in these posts.” Meaning with these posts. I stand by what I said. Posts and comments are different things.
If op meant in the thread or in the discussion or in the comments, then it’d be different. But they said “posts.” So I was correct in how I responded. Thank you! :)
This usage is an example of semantic extension—where a word is used in a non-literal sense that still retains some of its original meaning. Here, “in” is being used to mean “through the medium of” or “via,” which is a broader interpretation of “in” that overlaps with “with.” This flexibility is common in English, allowing prepositions to take on slightly altered meanings depending on context.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. And I think I’m done seeing the dubious quality posts and non-constructive comments you are spamming Lemmy with. So I’m gonna block you and move on.
But one last thing, and I say this with the best of intention…
I seriously don’t understand your rationale or your aim on this platform. Your frequency of trying to antagonize others indicates an unhealthy addiction; the quality of the content is all over the place, with no apparent discernment for legitimacy of the sources; and the need to engage with people here almost always turns negative, which isn’t helpful to you or anyone else.
I know you get defensive about people accusing you of being a Russian operative (which I don’t think you are) and of them ‘persecuting’ your opinion. You put on a proverbially happy face, but the urge for contrarianism (which is usually a sign of unhappiness) and that undertone of feeling disrespected shines through that. Surely you know by now that the reason you get so heavily down-voted by others on this platform isn’t because they disagree with your opinion. It’s because you seem to post and comment in bad faith trying to antagonize others and then proverbially run and hide behind the “hey I don’t support that opinion/candidate myself!” argument. You obviously have some sort of an agenda, but you won’t admit to what it really is. That lack of emotional and intellectual honesty is what irritates people.
You will keep doing what you want, and that’s totally your prerogative. But you’re not changing anyone’s minds. You’re only galvanizing them against your opinions and marginalizing yourself.
Maybe you need some emotional help? (Rhetorical question, I don’t want an actual answer.). If so, then I hope you get it.
You are changing the topic. Comment OP didn’t say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
The poster said, “Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith.”
I’ve explained how I respond.
And since the commenter suggested I was posting “propaganda,” I simply pointed out that I didn’t write the article. It was shared from a reputable news source, not produced by me. Unless he believes that the news organization itself produces propaganda, then his argument doesn’t hold up.
Thank you!
OP’s original comment (emboldened relevant word by me):
IN these posts, not WITH these posts. You engage INSIDE (in) posts via comments. He/she was talking about your comments.
The op said “in these posts.” Meaning with these posts. I stand by what I said. Posts and comments are different things.
If op meant in the thread or in the discussion or in the comments, then it’d be different. But they said “posts.” So I was correct in how I responded. Thank you! :)
TIL “in” means “with”.
You are incorrect. Thank you! :)
I don’t think… English is their first language. I could be wrong
This usage is an example of semantic extension—where a word is used in a non-literal sense that still retains some of its original meaning. Here, “in” is being used to mean “through the medium of” or “via,” which is a broader interpretation of “in” that overlaps with “with.” This flexibility is common in English, allowing prepositions to take on slightly altered meanings depending on context.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect.
Glad you learned something! :)
Ooh, two replies! Didn’t mean to trigger you, friend. :)
And no matter how much you try to weasel out of it with misplaced semantics, you are still incorrect. :D
Not triggered at all. I just let you know that you’re actually still incorrect. :)
The evidence says otherwise.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. And I think I’m done seeing the dubious quality posts and non-constructive comments you are spamming Lemmy with. So I’m gonna block you and move on.
But one last thing, and I say this with the best of intention…
I seriously don’t understand your rationale or your aim on this platform. Your frequency of trying to antagonize others indicates an unhealthy addiction; the quality of the content is all over the place, with no apparent discernment for legitimacy of the sources; and the need to engage with people here almost always turns negative, which isn’t helpful to you or anyone else.
I know you get defensive about people accusing you of being a Russian operative (which I don’t think you are) and of them ‘persecuting’ your opinion. You put on a proverbially happy face, but the urge for contrarianism (which is usually a sign of unhappiness) and that undertone of feeling disrespected shines through that. Surely you know by now that the reason you get so heavily down-voted by others on this platform isn’t because they disagree with your opinion. It’s because you seem to post and comment in bad faith trying to antagonize others and then proverbially run and hide behind the “hey I don’t support that opinion/candidate myself!” argument. You obviously have some sort of an agenda, but you won’t admit to what it really is. That lack of emotional and intellectual honesty is what irritates people.
You will keep doing what you want, and that’s totally your prerogative. But you’re not changing anyone’s minds. You’re only galvanizing them against your opinions and marginalizing yourself.
Maybe you need some emotional help? (Rhetorical question, I don’t want an actual answer.). If so, then I hope you get it.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect. Thank you! :)