robinnist [he/him]

You also keenly ignore the obvious troll movement going on pushing anti dem anti vote propaganda coming from this very lemmy instance.

Whether there’s an anti-vote anti-dem troll movement coming from whatever instance is irrelevant.

So no, I don’t regret asking the commentor to back up their post with any form of policy or factual issue.

You asked the user to back up something they didn’t say because you misunderstood their comment. You didn’t ask for “any form of policy or factual issue” you asked them to give you a specific trump policy that would help fix the issue when they never said a trump policy would help fix the issue. The reason you don’t regret this is because you’re stupid and rephrasing things in such a dishonest way is not something you can do to someone who’s seen the entire conversation; delusion and copium poisoning should be a private affair.

If they simply were venting on the current state then fine but yall all [sic] rushed in on cue to defend an offhand comment.

Only I “defend[ed]” the original comment which is what I guess you’re referring to by the “offhand comment,” and you could similarly say you “rushed in on cue” to criticize an offhand comment, except you did it with your brain turned off. Just genuine nonsense. Disengage and reflect.

Food for thought: the only reason it seems condescending and prickish is because I shouldn’t have to tell you to carefully read a comment before responding to it, and doing so makes it seem like I’m talking to you like a child. But still, you could’ve just reread the comment, recognized that your reply wasn’t connected, and edited your comment to be more connected or just deleted it. The situation would’ve been flipped but instead you lashed out and completely embarrassed yourself. You have nothing to teach me.

I told you to reread the comment until you got it, which you apparently couldn’t do. The original commenter’s position wasn’t that there was a Trump policy that would help fix this issue, and I don’t understand how you could possibly get that message from it; I figured I wouldn’t have to explain it to you, that you could just look over it again and realize that your “reply” didn’t make sense as a reply, but I’ll explain it now: the comment being anti-Kamala does NOT mean it is pro-Trump, and yes, it is anti-Kamala and anti-two party election rhetoric (referencing this because it is US election season and the idea that you can vote Democrat to fix the country even if a Democrat who campaigned on the same notion (relying on dissatisfaction with a Republican president the Democratic Party had practically ushered into office in a failed attempt to get Hillary elected) is already in office has become more and more prevalent—without the prior Trump presidency to react against, Kamala has nothing to blame obvious fixes not being put in place for domestic problems on but the presidency of which she is second-in-command, which she can’t do, and so the specter of Trump must be played up). This is the point.

As for “decid[ing] to go all ad-hominem”, didn’t that start with your response to my comment (which wasn’t a personal attack but just advice that you should reread the comment you were responding to because you had misunderstood it)? I don’t understand how you can read this thread and think it was anyone other than you who began the insults and derailed the conversation, and as far as insults go, only your “hexbear dweeb” nonsense could possibly fit the definition of an ad-hominem. Also the “your lackeys” thing doesn’t make any sense, do the bare minimum of knowing who you’re responding to.

I genuinely don’t know why you didn’t just admit you were in the wrong or ignore the responses, instead defending obviously wrong positions and embarrassing yourself further and further to the point of no return.

Reread the comment until you get it.