zlacker

> but you should be aware that this lineup of statements is a bog standard bad-faith rhetorical tactic, and may be [mis]interpreted that way

Aha, so that's what is happening.

Thanks a lot for the explanation.

This is one of the things that really annoy me here: every time someone make an honest argument and someone else assume that it is a

- dogwhistle

- a "just asking question" tactic

- etc

even when they have to misread or stretch the meaning quite a bit to arrive at that result.

>>eitlan+(OP)
If you've noticed such a pattern and dislike it, you could have restructured your argument to avoid it. I toss or substantially rewrite more comments than I eventually post.

>>anigbr+Ss
I reread it a number of times and I often do the same.

In this case it seems I had written what I meant though and a number of people just read mdorazios comment, saw that I was being downvoted and decided to continue piling on.

Also I guess a number of people like you are tired and angry and not in the mood for discussing alternatives-to-CS-gas-in-a-situation-where-the-use-of-force-is-actually-warranted.

Whatever, I don't care about stupid internet points, I just wish people here could read what I actually wrote instead of what mdorazio think I wrote.

I wish you luck with the protests.