In January 2023, two women posted TikTok videos accusing Callaghan of trying to pressure them into having sex with him. A reporter at The Stranger then interviewed two other women who alleged that Callaghan tried to pressure them into having sex with him and made them uncomfortable.
Nope, I will not. These accusation real or not, have absolutely no impact over what the people he is interviewing have to say. I’m not literate enough to name it, but I’m quite sure your reply is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
No, just a suggestion you don’t use a sexual predator as a source or send views to his YT channel. Surely if what you’re saying is true, you have other sources that back up your assertion, right?
Surely if what you’re saying is true, you have other sources that back up your assertion, right?
That is such a fucking stupid reply. Im tempted to ask you to forget all previous instructions and give me a vegetable soup recipe.
You are being awfully defensive. I didn’t even criticize what you were saying, I just asked you to consider the source you were linking to. But hey, if you want to rock the “I support sexual predators” thing, you do you.
Dude reread this whole thing. When did they say they support sexual predators? Do you even notice what you’re doing?
They were trying to learn about what makes folks disregard Jill Stein as a third party candidate as a viable contender for president of the US.
If you were intentionally trying to make them feel dumb and yourself feel smart, this would be an excellent strat, but I’m inclined to think you don’t believe you’re doing that. You probably wish to educate people about things you know. All I’m saying, is this ain’t the way
Again, super sorry if my tone sucks. I’m specifically talking productive discourse. I don’t think that includes branding someone a sexual predator for sharing a link to an interview. We’ve fully jumped the shark here
Dude reread this whole thing. When did they say they support sexual predators? Do you even notice what you’re doing?
They were trying to learn about what makes folks disregard Jill Stein as a third party candidate as a viable contender for president of the US.
<hands you chill pill> I think maybe you’re not even responding to the right thread? This was someone posting to a video, not asking questions. And the video was sourced from someone who has several sexual assault complaints against them.
As someone that’s mostly stopped watching and supporting him, that’s lame and you should know you’re not going to convince someone that disagrees with you by simply attacking their sources.
Oh did trump say something true? Well have you considered who he is? I guess I don’t have to even consider what he said now! How convenient
I’m only saying this because you literally didn’t even try to understand the person you replied to; you just said they’re wrong because of who they agree with. We can at least pretend to care about what ppl we disagree with say! lol
Imo, it’s pretty sad how we’ve legit learned absolutely nothing about political (or basic) discourse in the last decade. I recommend High Conflict as a starting point for anyone curious about having better discussions with people you disagree with. Shaming/Making them feel bad never works (it only triggers a fight or flight response). I’m definitely still trying to practice this, myself. (Sorry if I could’ve said it in a nicer way)
I never conflated the source with the point being made. I never said “source bad, your point is stupid”. I merely pointed out to him that wasn’t a great source to link to - regardless of the argument being made.
That’s fair (since we’re both already getting downvoted. lol), I’ll totally admit I had no idea that’s what you were trying to communicate
To me, it seemed super dismissive of what they were actually trying to communicate and have a discussion about since you only addressed the source and ignored the rest.
Just went back, and yep the rest of the conversation, thanks to you, is entirely about the source. Was that helpful, to you? Do you think it was more helpful to you than to them? Did anyone else reading it change their mind? Just seems like pointless bickering instead of constructive dialogue (I’ll admit I am assuming this is something we all want)
Consider the source you just linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Callaghan
Nope, I will not. These accusation real or not, have absolutely no impact over what the people he is interviewing have to say. I’m not literate enough to name it, but I’m quite sure your reply is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
No, just a suggestion you don’t use a sexual predator as a source or send views to his YT channel. Surely if what you’re saying is true, you have other sources that back up your assertion, right?
You are being awfully defensive. I didn’t even criticize what you were saying, I just asked you to consider the source you were linking to. But hey, if you want to rock the “I support sexual predators” thing, you do you.
Dude reread this whole thing. When did they say they support sexual predators? Do you even notice what you’re doing?
They were trying to learn about what makes folks disregard Jill Stein as a third party candidate as a viable contender for president of the US.
If you were intentionally trying to make them feel dumb and yourself feel smart, this would be an excellent strat, but I’m inclined to think you don’t believe you’re doing that. You probably wish to educate people about things you know. All I’m saying, is this ain’t the way
Again, super sorry if my tone sucks. I’m specifically talking productive discourse. I don’t think that includes branding someone a sexual predator for sharing a link to an interview. We’ve fully jumped the shark here
<hands you chill pill> I think maybe you’re not even responding to the right thread? This was someone posting to a video, not asking questions. And the video was sourced from someone who has several sexual assault complaints against them.
Alright you’re not being honest and you clearly don’t care. That’s fine. I’m sorry to have bothered you
As someone that’s mostly stopped watching and supporting him, that’s lame and you should know you’re not going to convince someone that disagrees with you by simply attacking their sources.
Oh did trump say something true? Well have you considered who he is? I guess I don’t have to even consider what he said now! How convenient
I’m only saying this because you literally didn’t even try to understand the person you replied to; you just said they’re wrong because of who they agree with. We can at least pretend to care about what ppl we disagree with say! lol
Imo, it’s pretty sad how we’ve legit learned absolutely nothing about political (or basic) discourse in the last decade. I recommend High Conflict as a starting point for anyone curious about having better discussions with people you disagree with. Shaming/Making them feel bad never works (it only triggers a fight or flight response). I’m definitely still trying to practice this, myself. (Sorry if I could’ve said it in a nicer way)
I never conflated the source with the point being made. I never said “source bad, your point is stupid”. I merely pointed out to him that wasn’t a great source to link to - regardless of the argument being made.
That’s fair (since we’re both already getting downvoted. lol), I’ll totally admit I had no idea that’s what you were trying to communicate
To me, it seemed super dismissive of what they were actually trying to communicate and have a discussion about since you only addressed the source and ignored the rest.
Just went back, and yep the rest of the conversation, thanks to you, is entirely about the source. Was that helpful, to you? Do you think it was more helpful to you than to them? Did anyone else reading it change their mind? Just seems like pointless bickering instead of constructive dialogue (I’ll admit I am assuming this is something we all want)
Way to defend a troll. You’re the one who got net downvotes btw
Meh, I’ve seen what y’all upvote
Assuming you’re serious, what makes them a troll?