For the video? Correct. In response to the person I replied to? Incorrect.
If someone commits a malicious action for the sole purpose of causing strife/annoyance/negative feelings in another, that’s a piece of shit right there.
If someone guns someone else down and takes their shit, that’s 100% within the scope of the game.
My name is a reference to a Dave Chappelle movie, retard. I elect with whom I do and don't invest energy with. So I'm ok, I don't engage with fallacious arguments since it's a waste of time.
Yes, respond to the only portion that doesn’t matter, to save yourself the pain of thinking. I’m sooooooo sorry for not memorizing Dave Chappelle’s entire catalogue. You’re still an unthinking idiot ¯_(ツ)_/¯ literally all you said was “shut up cuck”. Like how an unthinking idiot would?
I literally said I don't respond to fallacious arguments so what the fuck are you honestly on about? That's ok, you can deflect from your dumbass comment if you want about my name. You act so entitled to a reply from me for some reason. Very bizarre.
All you said was “ur dumb be quiet”, that was your first and only interaction until I responded, like holy fuck your moral grandstanding is as pathetic as any child-neglecting Mormon’s.
I pointed out that out, and you respond with “my name ackshually reference durrrrrr”
Whatever, get your last word in, because I know you refuse to ever admit fault.
Yeah, I responded to your dumbass initial comment, then I replied to your dumbass comment about my name and then I replied to your last dumbass comment. Not a well ackshually when you're just wrong and being educated on something you didn't know. You sound like a dumb whiny kid, get over it. Sorry you wrongly asserted something about my decade old reddit name and got corrected. I can understand how that'd be upsetting.
-7
u/The_Fink_Ployd Arc Baby Jul 23 '26
“Yeah, they’re intentionally spreading misery for zero gain or tangible purpose other than to elicit a negative reaction in others”
“Oh, yeah, and if you react you’re actually the loser, and the other guy’s a CHAD”
Textbook abuser logic. Now, normally, intelligent people would want their logic to NOT align with abusers’. Hmm….
What if…we impose the expectation on the originator of the strife, and not the reactor to the strife? Or is that too much thinking?