I'm Oppressed So Buy My Shitty Products

[Metaphor]

You

Your involvement in the thread suggests otherwise. At a minimum, your derailment attempts deflected the focus from someone who shares your biases.

It was not a derailment attempt.

Addressing the OP gives you a chance to redeem some credibility after your massive failure to make an even remotely case for that silly accusation, and to appear as an intellectually honest contributor instead of resembling an ideological quisling.

There is, in fact, absolutely nothing at all to address in the OP, because the OP is a link to a YouTube video without any commentary or questions.

I am disappointed that you will make any excuse to avoid the OP topic (the OP title, duh). Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but you can address the OP to avoid the appearance of an ideological quisling.

I don't need an excuse to 'avoid' the OP. I have nothing interesting or contrarian to say about it. I watched less than a minute or so of the video and was bored. The only thing I might say is that the OP title should have been "I was cancelled so buy my shitty products" but I didn't listen to enough of the video to care.

And yet, you continue to offer pathetic excuse after excuse.

I'm flattered that you want my input so much but sometimes my adoring public has to be left wanting.

Thanks for the confirmation that you post even when you know you have no relevant input.

That's a grossly dishonest falsehood.

What happened was this. I had nothing of particular note to say about the OP, which was a link to a video with no comments or questions attached. You hounded me relentlessly to say something about the OP, and I pointed out that the OP had no comments or questions. You then attacked me for pointing that out, and said the OP includes the title of the thread and again hounded me to say something about the OP.

In an act that I now regret, I made one brief comment about the title of the thread not seeming to reflect the contents of the video, hoping to slake your thirst for my wisdom. Instead, you attacked me for responding to your relentless hounding asking me to respond.

Your obsession with my thoughts is a tad disturbing and I'm not interested in a long-distance boyfriend.

 

[Jarhyn]

You

Your involvement in the thread suggests otherwise. At a minimum, your derailment attempts deflected the focus from someone who shares your biases.

It was not a derailment attempt.

Addressing the OP gives you a chance to redeem some credibility after your massive failure to make an even remotely case for that silly accusation, and to appear as an intellectually honest contributor instead of resembling an ideological quisling.

There is, in fact, absolutely nothing at all to address in the OP, because the OP is a link to a YouTube video without any commentary or questions.

I am disappointed that you will make any excuse to avoid the OP topic (the OP title, duh). Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but you can address the OP to avoid the appearance of an ideological quisling.

I don't need an excuse to 'avoid' the OP. I have nothing interesting or contrarian to say about it. I watched less than a minute or so of the video and was bored. The only thing I might say is that the OP title should have been "I was cancelled so buy my shitty products" but I didn't listen to enough of the video to care.

And yet, you continue to offer pathetic excuse after excuse.

I'm flattered that you want my input so much but sometimes my adoring public has to be left wanting.

Thanks for the confirmation that you post even when you know you have no relevant input.

That's a grossly dishonest falsehood.

What happened was this. I had nothing of particular note to say about the OP, which was a link to a video with no comments or questions attached. You hounded me relentlessly to say something about the OP, and I pointed out that the OP had no comments or questions. You then attacked me for pointing that out, and said the OP includes the title of the thread and again hounded me to say something about the OP.

In an act that I now regret, I made one brief comment about the title of the thread not seeming to reflect the contents of the video, hoping to slake your thirst for my wisdom. Instead, you attacked me for responding to your relentless hounding asking me to respond.

Your obsession with my thoughts is a tad disturbing and I'm not interested in a long-distance boyfriend.

Dude, it's not his fault that you are apparently unable to contribute anything meaningful across your participation here besides insults and swipes.

It's interesting what you say you are not interested in, though. It means the thought has at least once crossed your mind that you might have feelings and longings and that you might have even held a slightly more tender hate for LD.

You chose this thread with an OP you didn't like rather than any of the other threads where, get this, we might actually care about your perspective on the OP (like the don't say gay bill thread; there's lots of discussion there about when and whether kids deserve an education that tells them being gay is normal and acceptable).

Like, you care 3 pages worth to bump and attack and distract from this guy getting a public call out for virtue signalling and parading around dead veterans and other jingoistic bullshit...

Have you ever stepped back, and looked at your own, wider pattern of behavior?

 

[laughing dog]

You

Your involvement in the thread suggests otherwise. At a minimum, your derailment attempts deflected the focus from someone who shares your biases.

It was not a derailment attempt.

Addressing the OP gives you a chance to redeem some credibility after your massive failure to make an even remotely case for that silly accusation, and to appear as an intellectually honest contributor instead of resembling an ideological quisling.

There is, in fact, absolutely nothing at all to address in the OP, because the OP is a link to a YouTube video without any commentary or questions.

I am disappointed that you will make any excuse to avoid the OP topic (the OP title, duh). Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but you can address the OP to avoid the appearance of an ideological quisling.

I don't need an excuse to 'avoid' the OP. I have nothing interesting or contrarian to say about it. I watched less than a minute or so of the video and was bored. The only thing I might say is that the OP title should have been "I was cancelled so buy my shitty products" but I didn't listen to enough of the video to care.

And yet, you continue to offer pathetic excuse after excuse.

I'm flattered that you want my input so much but sometimes my adoring public has to be left wanting.

Thanks for the confirmation that you post even when you know you have no relevant input.

That's a grossly dishonest falsehood.

No, it is based on the plain reading of your plain words.

What happened was this. I had nothing of particular note to say about the OP, which was a link to a video with no comments or questions attached. You hounded me relentlessly to say something about the OP, and I pointed out that the OP had no comments or questions. You then attacked me for pointing that out, and said the OP includes the title of the thread and again hounded me to say something about the OP.

When one has to resort to rhetorical excess to make excuses, it is a clear indication that there is no excuse.

The reality is that you have admitted a number of times that you don't care about the OP. That means you know (or should know) that have no relevant input. But you continue to post.

In an act that I now regret, I made one brief comment about the title of the thread not seeming to reflect the contents of the video, hoping to slake your thirst for my wisdom. Instead, you attacked me for responding to your relentless hounding asking me to respond.

You conflate "opinion" with "wisdom". The two are vastly different, especially in your case.

I end with this.

After your initial flyby virtual signal, you attacked someone for essentially calling out a certain group of people (a group that you clearly feel includes you) for not commenting on Mr. Lindell's lunacy. Leaving aside your virtue signalling about virtue signalling episode, the ultimate irony here is you have spent the entire thread providing evidence to support your imagined claim by JH that conservatives and their ideological allies will not comment on this conservative lunacy.

 

[Metaphor]

The reality is that you have admitted a number of times that you don't care about the OP. That means you know (or should know) that have no relevant input. But you continue to post.

Yes, I'm posting, just not about the OP. You know, the same thing you are doing.

You conflate "opinion" with "wisdom". The two are vastly different, especially in your case.

I didn't conflate them. I know you are not a literary type, ld, but sometimes I use rhetorical language in my writing.

After your initial flyby virtual signal, you attacked someone for essentially calling out a certain group of people (a group that you clearly feel includes you) for not commenting on Mr. Lindell's lunacy.

False. I attacked JH for calling out MyPillow while pretending he was above calling out.

the ultimate irony here is you have spent the entire thread providing evidence to support your imagined claim by JH that conservatives and their ideological allies will not comment on this conservative lunacy.

Again I know you are not a literary type, but you apparently do not know what irony means, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you spend a lot of time hatewatching youtube?

Actually that commercial is running regularly on my TV.

This is why my living room TV with the antenna is collecting dust, I only watch You Tube on my computer with ad block, and only watch streaming on the bedroom TV.

I watched broadcast TV for a minute when the internet was down. Dear lord, save me from bad commercials.

Antenna? There's no antenna even connected to our TV. It's been a long time since it listened to anything but a DVD--and it hasn't even been turned on in years.

 

[laughing dog]

The reality is that you have admitted a number of times that you don't care about the OP. That means you know (or should know) that have no relevant input. But you continue to post.

Yes, I'm posting, just not about the OP. You know, the same thing you are doing.

But I do care about the OP and addressed it. You have not.

You conflate "opinion" with "wisdom". The two are vastly different, especially in your case.

I didn't conflate them. I know you are not a literary type, ld, but sometimes I use rhetorical language in my writing.

I employed plain reading in context. Equating "opinion" with "wisdom" is conflation even in a rhetorical sense, but in that specif context it is a whopping bonehead conflation.

After your initial flyby virtual signal, you attacked someone for essentially calling out a certain group of people (a group that you clearly feel includes you) for not commenting on Mr. Lindell's lunacy.

False. I attacked JH for calling out MyPillow while pretending he was above calling out.

I am sorry. I did not realize how utterly baseless and ridiculous your position was.

the ultimate irony here is you have spent the entire thread providing evidence to support your imagined claim by JH that conservatives and their ideological allies will not comment on this conservative lunacy.

Again I know you are not a literary type, but you apparently do not know what irony means, either.

As usual, your unfamiliarity with the English language betrays you. And this will be my last entry in this particular boring and silly derail of yours.

 

[Elixir]

Yes. Apart from that one. Like, should we have to be the ones pointing this out? It's somehow apparent that every time someone actually communicated their virtues on the left, they are virtue signalling and it's so important that this be pointed out...

But now, it's someone else who notices it, and your comment after he noticed was not "oh, yah, look at that, that's some crazy ridiculous virtue signalling" you chose this particular response.

You nor anyone has to point out anything. The left points out the virtue signalling of the right, and the right points out the virtue signalling of the left.

I can't speak for anyone else's behaviour, but when I call out somebody's virtue-signalling, I make it clear that I have noticed it and I am calling it out. I don't attempt to cloak my calling out as a 'why isn't anybody calling out this virtue signalling' JAQing off.

Let get me this straight - you are virtue signaling about virtue signaling?

Maybe it’s just instructions on how to virtue signal on virtue signaling.
Anyhow, still good to learn from experts.

 

[Metaphor]

The reality is that you have admitted a number of times that you don't care about the OP. That means you know (or should know) that have no relevant input. But you continue to post.

Yes, I'm posting, just not about the OP. You know, the same thing you are doing.

But I do care about the OP and addressed it. You have not.

You conflate "opinion" with "wisdom". The two are vastly different, especially in your case.

I didn't conflate them. I know you are not a literary type, ld, but sometimes I use rhetorical language in my writing.

I employed plain reading in context. Equating "opinion" with "wisdom" is conflation even in a rhetorical sense, but in that specif context it is a whopping bonehead conflation.

After your initial flyby virtual signal, you attacked someone for essentially calling out a certain group of people (a group that you clearly feel includes you) for not commenting on Mr. Lindell's lunacy.

False. I attacked JH for calling out MyPillow while pretending he was above calling out.

I am sorry. I did not realize how utterly baseless and ridiculous your position was.

the ultimate irony here is you have spent the entire thread providing evidence to support your imagined claim by JH that conservatives and their ideological allies will not comment on this conservative lunacy.

Again I know you are not a literary type, but you apparently do not know what irony means, either.

As usual, your unfamiliarity with the English language betrays you. And this will be my last entry in this particular boring and silly derail of yours.

Bye sweetie.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. Apart from that one. Like, should we have to be the ones pointing this out? It's somehow apparent that every time someone actually communicated their virtues on the left, they are virtue signalling and it's so important that this be pointed out...

But now, it's someone else who notices it, and your comment after he noticed was not "oh, yah, look at that, that's some crazy ridiculous virtue signalling" you chose this particular response.

You nor anyone has to point out anything. The left points out the virtue signalling of the right, and the right points out the virtue signalling of the left.

I can't speak for anyone else's behaviour, but when I call out somebody's virtue-signalling, I make it clear that I have noticed it and I am calling it out. I don't attempt to cloak my calling out as a 'why isn't anybody calling out this virtue signalling' JAQing off.

Let get me this straight - you are virtue signaling about virtue signaling?

Maybe it’s just instructions on how to virtue signal on virtue signaling.
Anyhow, still good to learn from experts.

If the only way you can call out virtue signalling is to pretend that's not what you are doing, then you probably do need lessons in calling out virtue signalling.

 

[Jarhyn]

Meanwhile, zero claims of virtue signaling with a cross lapel, the folded flag in the background. And what the heck is with the giant Jesus/Lion painting? And a Last Supper model?

Yeah, that nimrod is on the air around here as well. Apparently he thinks promoting bathshit conspiracy theories should increase sales.

Spelling error intended?

So, this is the post Metaphor says is "pretending not to be a call out". It's pretty clearly intending to be a very visible and obviouscall out for anyone who likes to loudly observe "virtue signalling".

It is to say "check out this actual virtue signaller. This is virtue signalling, not any of the shit is normally crowed about as around here, and lookie who is the one actually doing it!"

It is publicly observing for anyone who doesn't want to or otherwise doesn't have the opportunity to make this observation.

There is no pretending going on here.

Here you are primping and preening over your turd, @Metaphor occasionally stepping in it again so as to track it around and leave little turd footprints all over the rug.

This post is a juxtaposition of virtue signalling against what is commonly spoken of as such and is obviously such a juxtaposition

This a call out of two things and clearly so: virtue signalling, and also false accusations of virtue signalling.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no pretending going on here.

Of course there is. JH said:

Meanwhile, zero claims of virtue signaling with a cross lapel, the folded flag in the background.

If JH wanted to call out the virtue signalling directly, he would say "a lot of virtue signalling going on here with the cross lapel, etc."

Instead he cloaks his call out as a bewildered searching for answers as to why nobody has called out the virtue signalling yet.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no pretending going on here.

Of course there is. JH said:

Meanwhile, zero claims of virtue signaling with a cross lapel, the folded flag in the background.

If JH wanted to call out the virtue signalling directly, he would say "a lot of virtue signalling going on here with the cross lapel, etc."

Instead he cloaks his call out as a bewildered searching for answers as to why nobody has called out the virtue signalling yet.

You once said you were first in your class in English, iirc. So it's weird you don't understand sarcasm.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no pretending going on here.

Of course there is. JH said:

Meanwhile, zero claims of virtue signaling with a cross lapel, the folded flag in the background.

If JH wanted to call out the virtue signalling directly, he would say "a lot of virtue signalling going on here with the cross lapel, etc."

Instead he cloaks his call out as a bewildered searching for answers as to why nobody has called out the virtue signalling yet.

You once said you were first in your class in English, iirc. So it's weird you don't understand sarcasm.

How on earth does JH's sarcasm make a difference?

Here is what JH did with his first comment:

• He drew attention to the lack of people in the thread who had called out MyPillow's virtue signalling
• He called out MyPillow's virtue signalling indirectly, by commenting about the lack of others calling it out.

Whether JH actually expected people to have commented on the virtue signalling by the time he made his comment and was genuinely surprised, or he was feigning it, makes no difference.

It quite beggars belief the level of denial about what JH did, and the absolute defensiveness about it.

EDIT: I rather think it's a number of people on this board who do not understand, or pretend to not understand, ironic and rhetorical language, but only when I use it.

Indeed, the number of people who call all counterfactual statements 'lies', and the number of people who claim to be unaware of screamingly sarcastic, over-the-top, obviously rhetorical statements and pretend those statements are lies, beggars belief.

 

[prideandfall]

it's profoundly interesting how you see commercials and such like this and can see this slide in the pop-culture of the US politically regressive ideology becoming an increasingly bizarre caricature of itself, and want to think... "ok this is some hokey shit a few famous nutjobs are spouting." and figure that's the end of it.

but then you read a thread like this, or literally any thread in the politics section where one of our resident circle-jerkers spam posts their lunacy, and it's like.... shit, no, it's not just lindell and boebert and taylor-green, they're ALL doing this.

is there some kind of "predictable idiot" subliminal coding on the daily mail or something?
the fact that every single one of you clowns is spouting an identical brand of tedious stupidity is quite remarkable if it's just a happy coincidence.

 

[Jarhyn]

If JH wanted

Ah yes, mind reading and false dichotomy.

Another option: JH wanted to cleverly both call out the virtue signaling being done in the ad and the hypocrisy done by those who are so quick to identify many things that are not virtue signalling so much as having virtue, but who failed to identify this clear example of actual virtue signalling all in the same statement.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah yes, mind reading and false dichotomy.

Drawing inferences is not mind reading. You draw inferences about my motivations all the time and you do not call it mind reading.

Another option: JH wanted to cleverly both call out the virtue signaling being done in the ad and the hypocrisy done by those who are so quick to identify many things that are not virtue signalling so much as having virtue, but who failed to identify this clear example of actual virtue signalling all in the same statement.

LOL. You literally (and I mean the word 'literally', literally) just accused JH of the exact same thing I accused him of, but in laudatory tones.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah yes, mind reading and false dichotomy.

Drawing inferences is not mind reading. You draw inferences about my motivations all the time and you do not call it mind reading.

Another option: JH wanted to cleverly both call out the virtue signaling being done in the ad and the hypocrisy done by those who are so quick to identify many things that are not virtue signalling so much as having virtue, but who failed to identify this clear example of actual virtue signalling all in the same statement.

LOL. You literally (and I mean the word 'literally', literally) just accused JH of the exact same thing I accused him of, but in laudatory tones.

No, you accused him of pretending he wasn't. There was no pretend. It was obvious that he was doing both of those two things, and was not making any attempt to pretend that he was not doing both things openly.

He just managed to do it cleverly.

And then you rose to the occasion and managed to prove his point.

You could have SHAMED Higgens, stuffed his face in the metaphorical sand and made him spit his coffee and shit his pants all at the same time.

All you had to say was "holy shit, seriously, what the fuck is up with all the virtue signalling up in PillowFucker's shit ad?"

You could have proven him wrong. He handed you that blank check to embarrass and shame him, probably knowing you wouldn't.

If you wanted to get trashy, you could even follow with a whataboutism like "It looks like he's taking cues from <insert any virtue signalling leftist here>".

The problem is, and I will grant, nothing you could whatabout about is going to hold even the most meager spark against the blazing jingoistic star of Mike Lindell, PillowFucker.

 

[Metaphor]

No, you accused him of pretending he wasn't. There was no pretend. It was obvious that he was doing both of those two things, and was not making any attempt to pretend that he was not doing both things openly.

Multiple people on this thread think he wasn't doing what I said, which is why there are now pages of arguments about it.

You could have SHAMED Higgens, stuffed his face in the metaphorical sand and made him spit his coffee and shit his pants all at the same time.

All you had to say was "holy shit, seriously, what the fuck is up with all the virtue signalling up in PillowFucker's shit ad?"

You could have proven him wrong. He handed you that blank check to embarrass and shame him, probably knowing you wouldn't.

What? No, I could not have 'proven him wrong', unless you believe in time travel to the past, but the fucking wormholes keep closing up on me.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you accused him of pretending he wasn't. There was no pretend. It was obvious that he was doing both of those two things, and was not making any attempt to pretend that he was not doing both things openly.

Multiple people on this thread think he wasn't doing what I said, which is why there are now pages of arguments about it.

You could have SHAMED Higgens, stuffed his face in the metaphorical sand and made him spit his coffee and shit his pants all at the same time.

All you had to say was "holy shit, seriously, what the fuck is up with all the virtue signalling up in PillowFucker's shit ad?"

You could have proven him wrong. He handed you that blank check to embarrass and shame him, probably knowing you wouldn't.

What? No, I could not have 'proven him wrong', unless you believe in time travel to the past, but the fucking wormholes keep closing up on me.

You really think it would have been any less effective mentioning it after you saw the thread for the first time and his comment was already there? That makes his comment even more foolish and petty if you didn't even have the chance to respond before he whips up a call out, and you accept the gambit.

But your response was... Rising to his callout.

 

[Metaphor]

You really think it would have been any less effective mentioning it after you saw the thread for the first time and his comment was already there?

You can't be serious asking this, can you?