Sociopath Community

You're reframing my point into something I never said. I never objected to you discussing Eminem, and I never suggested you needed anyone's consent to do so. I pointed out that you repeatedly discussed him after previously saying that you don't focus on him. Those are two different things.

“I discussed Eminem without anyone's consent” is therefore just a sarcastic response to an argument you invented. You can discuss Eminem as much as you want. It still doesn't establish that his politics are “hate driven,” and it doesn't answer my criticism of your unsupported reasoning about him.

You're doing the same thing you've done elsewhere: replace criticism of what you actually said with a caricature of the person criticizing you, then attack the caricature instead.

It's also rather ironic that you repeatedly describe my disagreement as “meltdowns,” “kicking and screaming,” and “crying,” while responding to me with theatrical stuff like “HHHMNNNNNESSSS” in all caps.

I'm not claiming that one exaggerated expression means you're having a meltdown. I'm pointing out the obvious double standard in how you interpret reactions. When I argue back, you frame it as evidence of insecurity or emotional instability. When you use exaggerated and theatrical language yourself, it's apparently just you being witty.

That's part of the same degrading pattern you've used throughout this discussion. You don't just disagree with me; you repeatedly characterize me as emotionally defective so you can dismiss what I'm saying instead of addressing it.

Dragoonback said: 

You're reframing my point into something I never said. I never objected to you discussing Eminem, and I never suggested you needed anyone's consent to do so. I pointed out that you repeatedly discussed him after previously saying that you don't focus on him. Those are two different things.

Yes yes. The center of focus was Bill Clinton. 

Was.

“I discussed Eminem without anyone's consent” is therefore just a sarcastic response to an argument you invented. You can discuss Eminem as much as you want. It still doesn't establish that his politics are “hate driven,” and it doesn't answer my criticism of your unsupported reasoning about him.

I successfully established that Eminem's politics are hate driven. 

You're doing the same thing you've done elsewhere: replace criticism of what you actually said with a caricature of the person criticizing you, then attack the caricature instead.

 Sorry that sounds vague. I did what to you ?

Golden_Eagle said:

Yes yes. The center of focus was Bill Clinton. Was. I successfully established that Eminem's politics are hate driven. Sorry that sounds vague. I did what to you ?

The center of focus may have been Clinton originally. That doesn't change the fact that you repeatedly expanded the discussion into Eminem, Trump, Kamala, celebrities, his fans, and his alleged campaign payment. I wasn't objecting to that. I was pointing out the mismatch between saying you don't focus on Eminem and then spending a substantial amount of the discussion on him.

And no, you haven't successfully established that Eminem's politics are “hate driven.” You've established that he strongly dislikes Trump, has criticized him harshly, and has alienated some fans over politics. None of that establishes what actually drives his political outlook. You're treating the conclusion as though the evidence proves it simply because you keep asserting it.

As for what I said you did, this is something you do repeatedly. You make an assertion, assumption, or provocation, then later treat the response to it as though the other person introduced the framing themselves. Suddenly they're expected to explain why they're talking about something that you were the one who originally brought into the discussion. That puts the burden on everyone else to reconstruct your own instigations while allowing you to pretend their response came out of nowhere.

Here, I criticized what you actually said, and you responded by reframing that criticism as me being “mentally distracted,” “conflicted,” “crying,” “kicking and screaming,” or having a meltdown. When I pointed out that I was discussing your actual arguments, you turned that into “you you you.” When I pointed out that you had repeatedly discussed Eminem, you turned that into an imaginary complaint about needing your consent to discuss him.

That's what I mean by caricaturing the person making the criticism instead of addressing the criticism itself.

Yes I did.

Are you okay ?

“Yes I did” isn't an explanation of how you established the claim. It's just you asserting that you did. Then “are you okay?” turns the disagreement into a comment about me rather than addressing why your evidence actually supports your conclusion. You're treating your own assertion as though it settled the argument and then using a demeaning remark to make continued disagreement look like a problem with the other person.

Dragoonback said: 

“Yes I did” isn't an explanation of how you established the claim. It's just you asserting that you did.

True. It is not an explanation. I am however agreeing that's what I did.  

Then “are you okay?” turns the disagreement into a comment about me rather than addressing why your evidence actually supports your conclusion.

I'm asking cause you're doing that thing where you just talk about the conversation, how it went. Seems like you're chasing your tail there. 

Are you actually okay though ?

You're treating your own assertion as though it settled the argument and then using a demeaning remark to make continued disagreement look like a problem with the other person.

 Yes.

I'm good. All is right in the universe right now. Don't have any complaints. 

Right, so you've essentially confirmed what I was pointing out. “Yes I did” was an assertion that you established the claim, not an explanation of how your evidence establishes it, and “are you okay?” was directed at me rather than the argument.

And discussing how the conversation went isn't me “chasing my tail.” It's relevant when you repeatedly reframe what was said, shift from the original claim to comments about my supposed mental state, and then treat my response to those shifts as evidence that there's something wrong with me. I'm pointing out the pattern because it affects the argument itself.

You can say you're “good” and that everything is right with the universe, but that doesn't make your original claim established. You're still asserting that Eminem's politics are hate-driven without actually showing why the evidence you gave establishes that conclusion.

I'm not confirming. You are. 

I'm just saying correct, yes, that's what happen uh huh. Yeah I did that. Very good.

There's nothing wrong with what I've done here. 

“I'm not confirming. You are” is too vague to actually rebut anything. You're implying that I'm the one making some improper confirmation, but you haven't said what I'm supposedly confirming incorrectly.

That's part of the problem with the way you're responding. You keep making vague statements about what I supposedly do while avoiding a concrete explanation of what you think I got wrong. “You are” leaves me to guess what you're even accusing me of, while making it sound as though I'm the one who has somehow committed the fallacy or failed to account for something.

If you think my description of what you did is inaccurate, identify the specific part that's wrong. If you think I described it accurately but object to my criticism of it, then explain why there's nothing wrong with it. Saying “correct, yes, that's what happened” and then “there's nothing wrong with what I've done” still isn't an argument.

And this is why I was discussing the way the conversation was unfolding in the first place. You repeatedly make assertions, shift the framing, make vague comments about my mental state, and then leave me to reconstruct what you supposedly mean. That doesn't make my criticism “chasing my tail.” It means I'm responding to what you're actually doing in the discussion.

You can say you're fine and that everything is right with the universe, but none of that establishes your original claim about Eminem either. You still haven't shown how the evidence you gave demonstrates that his politics are “hate driven.”

Dragoonback said: 

“I'm not confirming. You are” is too vague to actually rebut anything. You're implying that I'm the one making some improper confirmation, but you haven't said what I'm supposedly confirming incorrectly.

You just repeated yourself for the past page on what I did, and I agreed. and you repeated yourself again, and I said yes again. 

It's all written in the past 2 pages or so. 

"You did this, and you did that" lol

Yes