this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
773 points (93.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5771 readers
1858 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, prescriptively, it's a very certain type. You'll notice how for instance in Wikipedia they'd capitalise the n in "Nazi", while on forums you might see people using just "nazi". Is there a difference? Yes. The same way "literally" means literally, but it can also be used just as emphasis. And that's the opposite of it's meaning.

Yet because some people like to use it that way, it's accepted as a colloquialism into the language.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism

Just like that wasn't the first definition of nazi, so too "literally" has a several definitions.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally

Literally is also used to emphasize a statement and suggest that it is surprising:

See how that works?

You're using the non capitalised version as well. So you're incorrect. The Israeli government are nazis. They might not be Nazis, but they are nazis.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thats actually a hilarious attempt at squaring this little antisemitic circle people where keep drawing.

Its funny that you provide links to everything but the part that could prove your nonsense to be true (that the meaning of nazi changes when a capital letter is used). Its literally something you just made up now, then claimed that (as colloquiums exist) the thing i just made up must be true.

How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the "N" changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, "Jewish people we don't like."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

There's nothing you'll ever accept as enough evidence that this is how language works and go "oh, okay, I think I was wrong." That's not even on the table. You're literally not capable of even writing those words.

When you're reading text, and it has the word "coke" in it, do you read it differently than "Coke"?

Could you perhaps take a guess at what's the difference?

First one stands for (depending on the place of usage), any type of cola, cocaine or even any type of soda drink. that's valid usage in the Southern US, calling a can of any carbonated sugary drink "coke" is perfectly fine. Whereas "Coke" is short for "Coca-Cola" and refers to the actual Coke.

Now unless I'm speaking to a second grader or something, you should be able to grasp the meaning of that. It works just like it does with "Nazi", "nazi."

No, I didn't invent the rules of capitalisation

How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the "N" changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, "Jewish people we don't like."

This has nothing to do with being a Jew and everything to do with being a small-minded, brainwashed, fascist genocide supporting piece of shit. In other words a nazi, as is the accepted colloquial usage.

Israeli government are despicable nazis.

Why would you make this about being Jewish?

Jewish people are great. Nazis fucking suck dick. Israeli government is full of nazis. Israeli government isn't the same as Jewish people. That's like saying that if I call Putler a fucking nazi, that I'm "just referring to Christians you don't like".

Like how fucking thick do you have to be to make that argument?

Israeli government are scum. Jewish people are lovely. And the true people of God are against this sort of nazi bullshit and would seek to make Israel face it's sins.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also, coke is a type of treated coal that produces much more heat, it's used in steel manufacturing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Yes, crossed my mind, thought not to confuse them more.

Ty for pointing it out tho.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its literally like listening to white people claiming they weren't being racist because they didn't use a hard R.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Man those arguments keep getting worse, eh?

How about grab yourself by the neck and actually Google some of these words so you don't have to keep publicly humiliating yourself like that.

Strawmen worse than what my niece comes up with, and she doesn't even speak well yet.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi

1 : a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler

2 disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.

Now you can try to make the argument that we've all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn't fit into the description of "an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc" :

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state

Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

So I really don't know what you're disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I've made up. They're definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.

You're just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn't happening.

Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn't. So are Israeli war crimes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, we both do know why. It's not because anyone is being antisemitic, as explained several times.

You're ashamed that you didn't understand what "colloquial" and "prescriptive" meant.

"Nazi" as a colloquialism means "horrible fascist". It is literally synonymous with it, as I've shown several times with several links to several different dictionaries, even explaining what "common usage" is and what linguists call an error and what not.

The reason the Israelis are being called nazis is that Israel is acting worse than historical Nazis, raping, pillaging, attacking hospitals, torturing prisoners, destroying aid convoys on purpose. And the leaders of Israel are worse than a lot of actual Nazi leaders.

Do you think your "you're just using Nazi because you hate Jews" rhetoric will work? No-one else has your magical powers to ignore an actual holocaust going on.

Now I suppose you'll protest the use of "holocaust", and that makes me antisemitic, because you don't understand the difference between "holocaust" and "the Holocaust".

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state

On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

People who stuff like that are rightfully called nazis, and your lame protestations definitely won't make calling Israel's genocidal fascist leaders nazis any less common or any more anysemitic.

No-one is talking about the Jewish people here except you. Is there a reason you're trying to equate Israel and Judaism? Perhaps something like... this word which apparently can't be used either, as it's "antisemitic" as well, according to some.

Tldr you didn't read that anyway. You're angry you didn't understand basic linguistics so now you're trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren't horrible fascists, because you can't pretend anymore that you don't understand what "colloquial" and "prescriptive" mean, because several commenters beat it into your low brow.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its either antisemitism or ignorance. Take your pick.

So now you're trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren’t horrible fascists

Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I've been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.

You'll have to try again there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your refusal to acknowledge that descriptive language exists doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you wrong. Trying to give out some ultimatums comes across as a six-year old stomping their foot and saying "no no no no no no no no"

Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.

Ah, so you're not denying the genocide Israel is committing? (Provably so.) Ah, so this is literally actually only about you being so ashamed that you were caught saying something stupid by people smarter than you that you're desperately trying to get the last word.

No, using "nazi" in colloquial parliance as synonym for "fascist" isn't antisemitic. Even suggesting that means you still don't understand what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" actually mean.

You're wrong, but you'll never be able to admit to it. So just stop replying, it'll be easier for you that way and maybe next time you'll do some Googling before commenting on linguistics you don't understand.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said its existence doesn't make you right, as only an idiot would think that. That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn't make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.

No, in never denied it or came even close to it at any point. You were just kitchen sinking.

Bless you for thinking that you're smarter than anyone, after your little outbursts.

Again, grow a spine, stop being a pathetic little coward, and let me know why you HAVE to use that word to describe Jewish people who happen to also be Israeli?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn’t make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.

It is, isn't it. So why are you so adamant that people who are using everyday colloquial language like calling fascists 'nazis', is actually A DEFINITE SIGN of actual antisemitism?

Because that doesn't follow from you not understanding linguistic terms.

"who happen to be Isreali"

Are you on crack? We're talking about specifically the Israeli people. This whole thread is about Israel and their fascism, which is rightfully compared to the actual Nazis. And once more, using "nazi" in colloquial parliance (such as forum interactions for instance) does not mean one is drawing a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.

You are the one who's afraid to stand behind their words. You said EVERYTIME, ANYONE uses "nazi" to refer to anyone Jewish, no matter the context or even awareness of the speaker, it's ALWAYS antisemitism. That is prescriptivism, which you STILL don't understand. Maybe watch a few youtube lectures on linguistics and come back in a few days if you seriously have to keep this childish bullshit up.

Just admit to your errors and be on your way. It'll be much easier on your emotional well-being, this is clearly upsetting you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Due to the definition of antisemitism, in the country I live in. Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.

I mean, don't get me wrong, you're clearly a very unpleasant person with some appalling social skills but my emotional well being is fine. Thanks all the same though. Also, let's not pretend you have the empathy or emotional range necessary to care about someone else's wellbeing.

What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission? Are they all idiots who don't understand "the very basics of linguistics" too?

I am standing by that and the EHRC definition of antisemitism. I reject your "not a hard N" argument. Nothing has changed here. I'm not sure what you're pretending its changed to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.

Why would anyone give literally any credibility to any of your brainfarts, when you won't accept your mistakes despite several people explaining in detail how you made them and why?

No, it's not the most "widely accepted definition" and in what context would that even be?

We're talking about colloquial use of language, which you now want to redirect this conversation from, because again, you're just seething over having made an error and being physically unable to accept it.

What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission?

At NO POINT ANYWHERE do they EVER claim that using "nazi" colloquially is remotely antisemitic. NOWHERE.

You're just sad and mad that you're wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much. You're trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its not a mistake to use an accurate definition of a term. Why would I admit a mistake for that?

I see, so because it doesn't specifically say

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, even colloquial usage with a soft "n"

They didnt mean all comparisons, per the words they used. I hope you stretched before those gymnastics.

You’re just sad and mad that you’re wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much. You’re trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)

Sorry, what was that you were saying about projecting again? Don't worry, your antisocial outbursts aren't definitely confirming anything. So, you just carry on, even if only one of us has had to lower themselves to an outburst like that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Its not a mistake to use an accurate definition of a term. Why would I admit a mistake for that?

Oh like confusing "language" and "linguistics"? That sort of an ACCURATE definition, eh?

You still don't understand that there are no "correct definitions" in colloquial language, that's why it's called colloquial. You're again, being 100% prescriptive, because you're some ignorant fool who's too intellectually lazy to educate themselves, so you still don't even understand the BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS DOZENS OF PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TEACHING YOU.

You're loaning half a sentence from an authority, removing it completely from context and trying to cover up your childish mistakes. This isn't about antisemitism, this isn't about Israel. This is about you, personally, not being big enough to be able to accept having made mistakes, having been stupid publicly. I know a lot of people like that. Most grew out of that by the time we left grade school, but a minority didn't, and never will. So I really hope you're still of the age to be in grade school.

You're literally trying to argue that "linguistics" is synonymous with "language", because you can't accept your own mistakes. You'll never grow or learn like that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh like confusing “language” and “linguistics”

No, that was you trying to slip out of explaining why you would write to someone with no knowledge of grammar.

You still don’t understand that there are no “correct definitions” in colloquial language

You don't understand that there being none doesn't lend wight to you "not a hard N" argument.

I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I care if my username became associated with getting something wrong on an Internet forum with like 20 people on it.

Talking to you was a mistake, as you're clearly a deeply unpleasant person who can't handle somone politely disagreeing with you. Now that I've admitted a mistake I've made, how do we reconcile that with what you say here?

This isn’t about antisemitism, this isn’t about Israel. This is about you, personally, not being big enough to be able to accept having made mistakes, having been stupid publicly. I know a lot of people like that. Most grew out of that by the time we left grade school, but a minority didn’t, and never will. So I really hope you’re still of the age to be in grade school.

I admitted the same mistake before already. So, despite admitting as mistake to you already, you still said all of that.

And you just went on and on and on

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

explaining why you would write to someone with no knowledge of grammar.

This is the third time I've said this. You acquire the rules of grammar through language acquisition, which is an inherent property in humans. Just like you don't need to study medicine to be able to know how to breathe, you don't need to study linguistics to be able to understand grammar. This is stated very clearly in the very simply written Wikipedia article, which you refuse to read, because you're a willfully ignorant dolt. You're afraid of looking dumb, so you double down and look even dumber.

You've admitted to no mistakes. You can't say "I was wrong". You can't. You can't say that. You're unable to.

You wrote "If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk." What you meant is "If I don't understand the language we're using, how are you able to communicate to me", thinking you have some sort of gotcha. Then I point out that linguistics and language are nowhere near synonyms. You get ashamed that you've been stupid and double down. And now there's three replies from you again, because you're being emotional, because you can't admit to not understanding linguistics.

Come on now. Think before you write. Please.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was wrong to talk to you, as you seem to be a deeply unpleasant person with severe social problems.

See, that was easy.

I'm good to be honest. I was using it colloquially. So, I used it correctly.

I wish I could see your face right now

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Colloquially" doesn't mean "it's to be taken however I later decide it will".

Why won't you just google these terms you CLEARLY do not understand? It's beyond incredible to me that someone who knows they're completely unaware of a thing starts arguing over it as if they actually were an expert.

The fact that this is an informal conversation doesn't change the meaning of your sentence in the slightest, nor the mistake you made.

You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”

Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh really? About things meaning whatever we want, tell me again about how the ECHR definition of antisemitism not including colloquialisms. Id love yo heat all about that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"not including colloquialisms"

It's like watching a six year old talk about car parts. They think they're making valid, adult sentences with meaning, and are completely oblivious to the adults laughing at them.

You're simply raging that you can't admit to having publicly humiliated yourself with your own stupidity. You can't walk back on it, and removing the comments at this point would be ridiculous by any standards. So you obsess over this "conversation", you have to reply, but you simply can't address the fact that for the entire thread, it's been about linguistics, and you don't even understand what the term means.

##You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”

##Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You still can't admit that calling Jewish people nazis is wrong huh? As if you spent all that time writing that bullshit out that no one will read, not even me, to attempt to justify being antisemitic is just tragic.

Its almost as if you have an inability to admit when you're wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why are you so desperately trying to conflate Israel to the entirety of Jewish people?

You're proudly spamming comments which say "I don't read the comments I'm replying to". That will look great when you're trying to pretend to know how to talk like an adult in some other threads, they go and check your profile and see you spamming "I DON'T READ, BUT I OBSESS OVER REPLYING". I imagine a lot of people will save a lot of time.

Doesn't matter how long you have this tantrum for. You were utterly wrong and said stupid shit that you can't recover from. Just stop replying. It'll be so much better for you. You don't understand how linguistics work, you don't understand what "colloquial" means and you're clearly unable to get that information from Google, which is weird as fuck.

Calling Israelis nazis is linguistically correct and to say it isn't is a linguistic error.

Still haven't asked me what religion I was brought up in. Afraid of the answer my little "linguistics is synonymous with language"..?

Remember when you said "I said it colloquially", thinking "colloquial" means "whatever I want a word to mean", because you don't understand what common usage is? Remember when you — at the top of the thread — were so insistent that you "can't just make up meanings for words"? Yeah, I agree. That's why it's okay to call Israeli fascist nazis. You on the other hand, are making shit up. Like "the hard N" :D What a pathetic and weak argument from a sore loser.

You said dumb shit. Own up to it.

##You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”

##Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The Israelis you're calling nazis are Jewish. So, you are calling Jewish people nazis which is an antisemitic thing to do.

What are you writing so much bullshit to defend antisemitism? Its almost as if you can't admit to making a mistake or something. Most people just go like "oh yeah, I see now" and move on with their lives.

Not you though. No, you HAVE to be antisemitic and will write essays defending it because you can't admit to making a mistake.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember when you were vehement that you're not a little child with an inability to own up to their own mistakes?

Remember when you ignored all the people teaching you what descriptive language means and how it works?

Remember when you then pretended to understand what people were telling you, so you wrote things like "If I didn't understand the basis of linguistics, why would you write to me?" and didn't understand just how incredibly wrong that sentence is, and then proceeded to get angry so you started to blame me for being an antisemite, because you're a sore loser?

Remember that? ;)

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi

disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.

Matches up pretty well. Shall we go over "colloquial" and "common usage" again? No? You're gonna stomp your foot and cry while you desperately ignore why were in this thread to start with, while using the excuse of "not even reading" the replies you reply to? :DD

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your history is gonna look wonderful when you spam the copy of a reply. Gonna look real mature to be having a tantrum over trying to hide from a stupid thing you said.

You're genuinely so mad I don't know why you didn't take my advice three days ago and stop replying to prevent further public humiliation of yourself by saying "linguistics is the same thing as language if you speak a language you're a linguistics-understandererer" :DD

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

I'm sure you'll tucker yourself out sooner or later.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is entertainment for me. I'm enjoying this. I actually use forums for pleasure. You're straight up admitting to not even reading the things you reply to, so you're clearly not enjoying this, so why are you doing it?

Is it perhaps because you're having a sort of tantrum and can't just accept that you said something silly, like "language is the same as linguistics" and "I used it colloquially which means whatever I decide" ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're not having fun, are you?

Is it because each and every reply, you're reminded of what absolutely hilarious stOOOpid things you said?

Like "I know what linguistics is. how would I be able to speak otherwise????? think!"

I am having fun. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

Imagine having fun defending antisemitism while replying to a copied message over and over. What a sad, lonely life you must live to call doing that fun. I couldn't help but read the last line.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Mooooom, he's not taking the bait on me calling him an anti-semite, what do I dooooooooo???"

You can just stop replying you know. There's no shame in giving up when you've lost and been an idiot. That's how we learn. To, for example, not think "linguistics" means "language" as in "I speak the linguistic". :DD

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong? Imagine having such a sad, lonely and empty life that you even claim to enjoy being wrong about calling Jewish people nazis.

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does "language" mean the same as "linguistics"? Did you think it does? Because you said so. You thought that anyone who speaks a language, understands linguistics. Want to explain that?

I've already answered your "wyaaah byaaah antisemitism" shit. I can answer you, but you can't answer me, and you're permanently recording that for the world to see. Thanks. ;)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong? Imagine having such a sad, lonely and empty life that you even claim to enjoy being wrong about calling Jewish people nazis.

Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

If no-one will ever see it.... why do you obsess over this thread? Is it because your ego got hurt when I predicted that you'd start publicly humiliating yourself, and I made the prediction days ago? When I said that you'll get ashamed of saying stupid shit when you'll get called out on your shit, you'll get a tantrum, and you'll start ignoring everything while still obsessively replying.

I've the same exact psychological response from literally thousands of people. It's a defense mechanism.

You have no choice though; you'll either keep humiliating yourself publicly, or you'll have to give up. ;) Because you did say: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”

What did you mean by that? Ignore this part to admit that I'm completely correct about you having a tantrum because you hurt your ego and that you'd rather avoid talking about you having made yourself publicly a fool.