And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung
Oh look, another strawman.
Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
Yes. They did.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
Oh look, another strawman.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article.
Oh look, someone trying to stir up a dumb argument on the internet because they need attention.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
ooh look, another strawman argument. strawman arguments all over the place today!
I don’t think you understand what that means
I understand perfectly. It means this is not a thing, and you never should have tried to make it one.
😂 No, that’s not what it means.
You don’t know what a straw man argument is do you?
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.