No problem, yo!
And to be fair, communication is always two-way. It"s not like I don’t want the public to be more thoughtful in their disagreements.
Have a good one.
No problem, yo!
And to be fair, communication is always two-way. It"s not like I don’t want the public to be more thoughtful in their disagreements.
Have a good one.
Okay so, this is a rhetoric problem.
This phrase here:
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique.
You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.
Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.
If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.
The trailer certainly failed at making his apparition exciting in any case.
I… completely disagree, but you know, whatever.
Oh! This was an ad! Those cocky sons o bitches.
Is that the table?
Wow. I’m so used to this comic being presented from a left perspective that I completely missed what explodicle was actually saying.