This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elegy · 46-50
@Sicarium Is that the stand you're going to take? You're going to scale the scope of history to suit your needs? You are talking about NOW so I'm referring to recent history, let's say 300 years. Everyone who isn't a history scholar has a an ignorant understanding of history. Even a history scholar could only push at the constraints of their ignorance for a relatively narrow scope of history. Seeing as how all history is written from a limited point of view. I digress though, please tell me all you know about history, me, the races of the world and I hope you keep misusing the word bias when what you really mean is ignorance. Especially since what I did was removed bias from your original statement to make my own.
AAAAANND GO!
AAAAANND GO!
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@Elegy So, after parsing through that pretentious word salad for the few statements of any significance:
If you meant recent history, you should've said. You're the one scaling history, you're literally ignoring all of it that doesn't suit your biased narrative. You project too much.
What original statement? Are you high? And, no, I'm not going to give you a thesis on the history of the world. You'd just ignore most of it anyway. Finally, you seem a little hysterical. It's ok to breath.
If you meant recent history, you should've said. You're the one scaling history, you're literally ignoring all of it that doesn't suit your biased narrative. You project too much.
What original statement? Are you high? And, no, I'm not going to give you a thesis on the history of the world. You'd just ignore most of it anyway. Finally, you seem a little hysterical. It's ok to breath.
Elegy · 46-50
@Sicarium My bad, I thought you was that douche bag up there. ☝
Clearly your an altogether other douche bag.
Interesting that you thought my response was pretentious. You don't find your original statement to me pretentious? It was vague, inaccurate and meant to impress. Instead it ended up just being droll. I don't need to be impressive, what I said was accurate.
To your strawman, I don't think it's crazy to assume the statement above means [i]now [/i]and I don't thing it too much to ask that you limit your bullshit to a reasonable time frame. But I doubt this is going to go anywhere anyway.
In order to meet your requirements you'd need to go back before colonialism which was the mid 1500's so... who isn't being realistic?
Clearly your an altogether other douche bag.
Interesting that you thought my response was pretentious. You don't find your original statement to me pretentious? It was vague, inaccurate and meant to impress. Instead it ended up just being droll. I don't need to be impressive, what I said was accurate.
To your strawman, I don't think it's crazy to assume the statement above means [i]now [/i]and I don't thing it too much to ask that you limit your bullshit to a reasonable time frame. But I doubt this is going to go anywhere anyway.
In order to meet your requirements you'd need to go back before colonialism which was the mid 1500's so... who isn't being realistic?
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@Elegy You didn't say [i]now[/i], you said [i]history[/i]. I responded directly to that, with an accurate and succinct response.
But I get it, your first reply failed. Then your projection failed. So now you have to lie to salvage your ego.
Also, if you're going to whine, falsely, about strawmen, you shouldn't lead with an ad hominem.
But I get it, your first reply failed. Then your projection failed. So now you have to lie to salvage your ego.
Also, if you're going to whine, falsely, about strawmen, you shouldn't lead with an ad hominem.
Elegy · 46-50
@Sicarium erm...
[quote]You are talking about NOW so I'm referring to recent history,[/quote]
No ego bruh, I will literally let all this stand as it is. You can keep throwing words at the wall. It won't make you any more correct.
You gave a succinct response that you thought was going to be accurate and shut me down but instead what you said was foolish and misguided.
You argue like a republican, completely devoid of facts and absolutely no substance.
[quote]You are talking about NOW so I'm referring to recent history,[/quote]
No ego bruh, I will literally let all this stand as it is. You can keep throwing words at the wall. It won't make you any more correct.
You gave a succinct response that you thought was going to be accurate and shut me down but instead what you said was foolish and misguided.
You argue like a republican, completely devoid of facts and absolutely no substance.
Sicarium · 46-50, M
@Elegy Yeah...
[quote]It's okay to not be white too which is historically a far more highly contested concept.[/quote]
You are way too dishonest to be that full of yourself. Sorry I bruised your ego, didn't realize it was that fragile. Anyway, have fun with your biased version of your cherry-picked history that conveniently gets redefined as now when it suits your dishonesty.
[quote]It's okay to not be white too which is historically a far more highly contested concept.[/quote]
You are way too dishonest to be that full of yourself. Sorry I bruised your ego, didn't realize it was that fragile. Anyway, have fun with your biased version of your cherry-picked history that conveniently gets redefined as now when it suits your dishonesty.