Yeah but the problem here is you made a huge assumption about who I am, who I represent and which political party I form a part of. You addressed me as such and when I pointed out your assumption was way off, now you're trying to argue about pronouns and semantics of conversations.
I'll keep bringing it back to this core point, you made a silly assumption and just can't admit it. It's as hilarious as it is sad.
What difference does it make if you were addressing me singularly or plurally? You were still addressing me. You can't claim that you were both addressing me and not addressing me at exactly the same time. Pick a lane and stick to it.
We're gatekeeping science now?
This is just the equivalent of "oh you like , name all their albums". It's dumb and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate something.
My dude, have you tried not being a cunt for no reason lately?
Yeah I checked the twitter profiles of the two people mentioned, one doesnt talk about it at all and the other says it's not what people think and it won't enable CFW.
AI nonsense.
It's really not. Literally the same thing happened with the PS3, arguably that was much worse and it didn't cook Sony at all.
No because apple bought up almost the entire 2026 allocation.
I wish you knew what the word "our" means, let me try one more time because you are funny.
If you hear (or read) the word "our", in public, private, on the internet, off the internet, at the gas station, at the bus stop, on your phone, or on your laptop...
...and it doesn't pertain to you... The speaker (or writer) is not referring to YOU. Do you understand?
I mean, ignoring the fact that this is a completely nonsense statement, even by your own logic it falls apart because your [https://old.lemmy.world/comment/21069429](original comment) was:
*You're both out of control, our parties should be dismantled and dissolved.
Next you'll be trying to tell me that if someone address you directly and says "you", they're not actually talking to you.
Also, your "upvote theory" is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum"; a theory is not necessarily true just because people think so.
That would be true if my "upvote theory" was "I got more upvotes so what I said must be true", but as a reminder you claimed:
should you do this in public ANYWHERE on earth, you will be looked at with distaste.
and the upvotes are in fact imperical data that the comment was not looked at with distaste. You should study up on your logical fallacies more, because you do not understand them.
A public conversation on the international internet, yes. You still seem to think that a public conversation can only involve specific parts of that public. It's like you don't understand the meaning of the word "public" or how the internet works.
Also given the fact that my comment has a positive ratio of upvotes, that would suggest your own theory about how I should be "looked at in distaste" doesn't hold water, either.
Once again, pubic or private setting, you made an assumption and that assumption was incorrect.
A thread about US politics on a worldwide facing thing called the internet. On a platform that is by design decentralised.
You cannot fathom that this isn't a restaurant, it's the internet and people on the internet are from all over the world.
Even now you're doubling and tripling down acting like I've interrupted some private discussion with your friends because the alternative makes you look incredibly silly.
The problem is you can just buy the $1000 TV you actually want and a $50 Android TV box to get the best of both worlds.
Now if only there was better competition on that Steaming box front.
You absolutely did make an assumption because you addressed me directly and started talking about "our" parties, there's no two ways about it. I'll keep quoting your exact words here:
There's no world where you're not addressing me directly and making assertions about "our" political party here. Everything else is irrelevant and you're doing a terrible job at trying to save face.