It was in response to needless thoughtlessness in describing the ordinary soldiers who fought overseas. There were myriad reasons they went to fight, and calling them all killers of their brothers is just gross. Most honestly thought they were serving their country and their fellow Australians. I’m sure the OP knows that, so his reason for posting this distorted rants about the people with the least power in the situation is purely for attention. If he just wanted to discuss the historical facts, he could have posted it on any other day, but he wanted to get our goat. Well, he got mine.
Your comments in this thread to date are a single sentence reply, moaning about downvotes and a direct insult. Go back to reddit if this is your idea of participation.
Oh, I’m sorry. Am I supposed to waste more words on obvious rage bait and a poster trying to kick up a fuss for attention to meet your approval? The OP posted an inflammatory piece on a solemn day of remembrance, and is surprised that their extreme take on the ordinary men and women who died in the war is considered a bit much? The ‘direct insult’ is a direct observation. In their bio they say they have narcissistic personality disorder, and their responses have been consistent with that, which is not good for their mental health or pleasant reading.
I don’t think OP is surprised at all by the responses, based on their replies here which have mostly been attempts to further debate the point they are (poorly) attempting to make. I think they wanted to get attention and create discussion and that’s part of the reason why the piece is so imflammatory. As I see it there are two ways to respond to this: you can get mad and post low-effort, off-topic replies as you’ve chosen to do (the average redditor response) or you can actually attempt to engage with the person and critique their writing/argument where applicable to draw out a less hysterical, more nuanced response from them. Most of the replies in this thread are an example of the latter and are contributing to the discussion. Yours achieves literally nothing other than making you feel like you “won” on the internet today. I really don’t understand why people like yourself use discussion-based social media if you are incapable of having a discussion about anything even remotely controversial. You just shit up the discourse and make these platforms worse for the rest of us.
They’re also misgendering Me. And they say they read My bio, so at that point you have to believe it’s intentional, right? Hm, someone who misgenders Me and attacks Me for My mental health, who refuses to behave civilly and instead posts one sentence inflammatory responses, all in defence of the armed forces. I think we may be dealing with a nazi.
I suggest you go work on your narcissistic personality disorder some more, and stop being a dick.
As much as I think what this person is arguing is grotesque, I agree with their reply. This was probably a bit needlessly personal tbh.
It was in response to needless thoughtlessness in describing the ordinary soldiers who fought overseas. There were myriad reasons they went to fight, and calling them all killers of their brothers is just gross. Most honestly thought they were serving their country and their fellow Australians. I’m sure the OP knows that, so his reason for posting this distorted rants about the people with the least power in the situation is purely for attention. If he just wanted to discuss the historical facts, he could have posted it on any other day, but he wanted to get our goat. Well, he got mine.
I’m nonbinary. You’re referring to Me as “he”, but My pronouns are “They/Them”. Please edit your comment to avoid misgendering Me.
Fuckin hell, that’s a bit personal, innit?
Your comments in this thread to date are a single sentence reply, moaning about downvotes and a direct insult. Go back to reddit if this is your idea of participation.
Oh, I’m sorry. Am I supposed to waste more words on obvious rage bait and a poster trying to kick up a fuss for attention to meet your approval? The OP posted an inflammatory piece on a solemn day of remembrance, and is surprised that their extreme take on the ordinary men and women who died in the war is considered a bit much? The ‘direct insult’ is a direct observation. In their bio they say they have narcissistic personality disorder, and their responses have been consistent with that, which is not good for their mental health or pleasant reading.
I don’t think OP is surprised at all by the responses, based on their replies here which have mostly been attempts to further debate the point they are (poorly) attempting to make. I think they wanted to get attention and create discussion and that’s part of the reason why the piece is so imflammatory. As I see it there are two ways to respond to this: you can get mad and post low-effort, off-topic replies as you’ve chosen to do (the average redditor response) or you can actually attempt to engage with the person and critique their writing/argument where applicable to draw out a less hysterical, more nuanced response from them. Most of the replies in this thread are an example of the latter and are contributing to the discussion. Yours achieves literally nothing other than making you feel like you “won” on the internet today. I really don’t understand why people like yourself use discussion-based social media if you are incapable of having a discussion about anything even remotely controversial. You just shit up the discourse and make these platforms worse for the rest of us.
They’re also misgendering Me. And they say they read My bio, so at that point you have to believe it’s intentional, right? Hm, someone who misgenders Me and attacks Me for My mental health, who refuses to behave civilly and instead posts one sentence inflammatory responses, all in defence of the armed forces. I think we may be dealing with a nazi.