the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
I'm not saying I agree with them, but you are literally ignoring what they're saying. They're saying you can be nuanced and think two things are bad, while you seems to think that them saying one is thing is bad means they think the other thing is good. I am also astonished at how many comments there are and no one has corrected you on this.
If the premise is bad the nuance is meaningless. In this case the premise means that if you agree with their example that two things can be bad you are forced to agree with their premise based on anecdotes and falsehoods.
People aren't being drawn into agreeing with a bad take just the logic of argumentation is sound. I am also astonished this is lost on you.