Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
This is the technicality they run on. Find any minute rhetorical shift, and claim it didn’t happen under that shift - then let the cattle defend the sound bite or quote.
We call that “false equivalence,” more formally. It’s no wonder there’s an intersection of Christian fundamentalism and right-wing politics, because that is a favorite tactic of religious apologists, too (who are often fundamentalists themselves).
He’s technically correct. They didn’t argue, they just demanded and expected everyone else to accept it. There was no discussion…
This is the technicality they run on. Find any minute rhetorical shift, and claim it didn’t happen under that shift - then let the cattle defend the sound bite or quote.
Or they just lie with wild abandon and sometimes they accidentally say something that’s technically true.
I frequently run into sealioning types who like to purposefully misunderstand phrases/terms used so they can ‘win’.
You’re right though it’s often just pasta on the wall, rapid-fire type nonsense.
We call that “false equivalence,” more formally. It’s no wonder there’s an intersection of Christian fundamentalism and right-wing politics, because that is a favorite tactic of religious apologists, too (who are often fundamentalists themselves).