zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. starkd+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-17 15:40:17
Individuals accounts cannot always be categorized in one of two ways. There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.
replies(2): >>Apocry+ex >>nobody+QR3
2. Apocry+ex[view] [source] 2022-12-17 18:32:41
>>starkd+(OP)
You are contradicting yourself. “The problem was that it was entirely one way.”
replies(1): >>starkd+Zi1
◧◩
3. starkd+Zi1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 00:09:08
>>Apocry+ex
Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.
replies(2): >>Apocry+nk1 >>nobody+pS3
◧◩◪
4. Apocry+nk1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 00:20:49
>>starkd+Zi1
What would have made it more of a comfortably multilateral situation?
5. nobody+QR3[view] [source] 2022-12-18 21:14:50
>>starkd+(OP)
>There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

An attempt by whom? Please be specific and name names.

Counter to which specific narrative? Please be specific and detailed.

Otherwise, you're just making unsupported claims. Not a good look, friend.

◧◩◪
6. nobody+pS3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 21:16:59
>>starkd+Zi1
>Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.

You keep referring to a "narrative," but you don't provide any details WRT to the ideas presented in such a "narrative."

As such, I have to reject your claims for lack of detail, facts or evidence. Feel free to change my mind by providing such things.

[go to top]