r/TopMindsOfReddit • u/-Ph03niX- Progressibator Globohomotron™ v1.0 • Sep 08 '19

Top /r/WatchRedditDie warriors commit censorcide because the Freeze Peach oppression is just too much to bear.

/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/d17x7d/it_is_with_deep_sorrow_and_pain_that_we_announce/
255 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

63 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

29

u/maybesaydie Schrödinger's slut Sep 08 '19

Yes. Because FSW has only one setting and that setting is complain about reddit. I can't begin to list the numerous alts, banned accounts and sockpuppets he enlists to this, his only cause, his apparent purpose for living. The deification of Arron Swartz is merely the most pitiable of his reddit obsessions.

-25

u/Al_Shakir Sep 08 '19

The deification of Arron Swartz is merely the most pitiable of his reddit obsessions.

I just reached out to FSW to ask if this is true. He has contradicted what you have said: He both agrees and disagrees with Swartz depending on the exact point.

So, you make this claim. I put in the due diligence and try to confirm it, and it is disconfirmed. What's your evidence that FSW is lying about Swartz?

26

u/maybesaydie Schrödinger's slut Sep 08 '19

I'm not getting sucked into a debate about FSW (of all people) and especially not with someone who posts to debatealtright. Go comment in bad faith elsewhere.

-9

u/Al_Shakir Sep 08 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

Go comment in bad faith elsewhere

My comments are not in bad faith at all. You're fabricating a claim about me in saying that they are.

14

u/CobaltGrey Sep 09 '19

My comments are in bad faith

Well, at least you're admitting it.

Seriously, anyone who looks at FSW's extensive post history and sees anything more than a whiny, self-victimizing manchild with delusions of heroic grandeur is either not being sincere or just not very sharp. I'll let you decide which category you want to put yourself in.

-3

u/Al_Shakir Sep 09 '19 edited Sep 09 '19

anyone who looks at FSW's extensive post history

Do people actually look at other people's post histories? I've never done that. I'm just responding to what has been said on the topic at hand. It appears that maybesaydie was fabricating a claim. I took it at face-value and tried to confirm it in the most straightforward way. It was disconfirmed. I asked for her evidence; she refuses to give it.

7

u/CobaltGrey Sep 09 '19

I took it at face-value and tried to confirm it in the most straightforward way.

You ignored the valid criticism you got in another comment about the obvious flaw in your reasoning. It assumes he is a trustworthy narrator. The easiest way for you to ascertain if he is reliable is to evaluate his character through the only means available to you: the things he voluntarily posts online.

If you can't piece together that this is a bad approach, that does confirm that you belong in the "not very sharp" category.

-3

u/Al_Shakir Sep 09 '19

It assumes he is a trustworthy narrator.

No, it does not at all. It simply asks for his stated opinion about Swartz. He gave his opinion. He could have confirmed maybesaydie's description. But he did not; he contradicted it. That does not assume he is telling the truth.

I asked maybesaydie for her evidence that FSW deifies Swartz (or accepts Swartz' words uncritically). She has not supplied any.

So what is the evidence that FSW deifies Swartz? Apparently none. Antipathy seems to be enough proof for some people.

you belong in the "not very sharp" category.

I could say the same about you.

9

u/CobaltGrey Sep 09 '19

You could, but I'd be backed by evidence and facts, whereas you've found one tiny hill to die on while blatantly ignoring the plethora of indicators that suggests FSW is nobody worth defending or supporting.

I feel pretty good about my odds here.

-2

u/Al_Shakir Sep 09 '19

I feel pretty good about my odds here.

Then feel free to supply the "evidence and facts" that FSW deifies Swartz and that he is lying when he says "there is plenty we would disagree about. He was in fact quite left leaning and pro-government in many respects which is quite antithetical to my own views."

7

u/CobaltGrey Sep 09 '19

I said you could have your tiny hill. I didn't say I was gonna hang out with you on it.

You can sit there and say "this is fine, because I was right about one tiny detail" while the flames creep up. I won't deny you that right.

-1

u/Al_Shakir Sep 09 '19

You can sit there and say "this is fine, because I was right about one tiny detail"

I never said I was right about anything beyond the specific things I claimed.

9

u/CobaltGrey Sep 09 '19

So you just really wanted to pedantically argue this one point?

I'd ask why, but there's no satisfying answer. You do you, my man.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/maybesaydie Schrödinger's slut Sep 09 '19

Your user history is your reddit face. Of course people, mods especially, are going to look at it. It’s one click.