Gormadt@slrpnk.net to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 17 hours agoGorillaz Based of Course [Rule]slrpnk.netexternal-linkmessage-square47linkfedilinkarrow-up1722arrow-down16file-text
arrow-up1716arrow-down1external-linkGorillaz Based of Course [Rule]slrpnk.netGormadt@slrpnk.net to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 17 hours agomessage-square47linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareSkullgrid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down18·12 hours agothe one saying “sky daddies”
minus-squarevzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·12 hours agoYou still have not addressed his actual point. You are just whining about him not using your preferred nomenclature.
minus-squareSkullgrid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down11·12 hours agoI don’t have to. I want to play edgy time. Why can he say “sky daddies” but I can’t say “the cambodian genocide had a horrifying atheism motivated aspect?”
minus-squarevzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·12 hours agoYou can. He says that it’s not relevant. Now you tell him why he’s wrong. You don’t whine because he’s disrespectful.
minus-squareSkullgrid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down10·12 hours ago Now you tell him why he’s wrong. he’s wrong because he’s edgy, and the discussion on his points have been done for centuries by better people than me.
minus-squarevzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·12 hours agoYou know, you can just say “I refuse to engage with your obvious rage bait”. But he’s not wrong because he’s edgy. He’s wrong because he’s wrong. Or not. As the case might be.
minus-squareSkullgrid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down7·12 hours agobut I don’t want to not engage with obvious rage bait. I want to humiliate rage baiters
minus-squareAzuranAurora@piefed.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·12 hours agoYou’re only humiliating yourself.
![Gorillaz Based of Course [Rule]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/5a959005-1f02-40b2-b5f2-f55691ef753c.png){kind=link}
the one saying “sky daddies”
You still have not addressed his actual point. You are just whining about him not using your preferred nomenclature.
I don’t have to. I want to play edgy time. Why can he say “sky daddies” but I can’t say “the cambodian genocide had a horrifying atheism motivated aspect?”
You can. He says that it’s not relevant. Now you tell him why he’s wrong. You don’t whine because he’s disrespectful.
he’s wrong because he’s edgy, and the discussion on his points have been done for centuries by better people than me.
You know, you can just say “I refuse to engage with your obvious rage bait”.
But he’s not wrong because he’s edgy. He’s wrong because he’s wrong. Or not. As the case might be.
but I don’t want to not engage with obvious rage bait.
I want to humiliate rage baiters
You’re only humiliating yourself.