Brudda, it’s a geniune question. The article talks about physical products. I’m wondering how it going on other fronts i.e the non-physical. A real answer would be appreciated instead “I’m on high alert and will interpret any answer I see as malevolence”.
What? There’s absolutely no way we can interpret intent in this case - this could genuinely be a fair question asked in good faith.
“What about US tech?” could be interpreted a number of ways, from “are Canadians also divesting from US tech?” to “But Canadians aren’t divesting from US tech, what about that?”. There’s no reason to believe this person is going after the latter case here when “ok that’s retail, how’s tech doing?” is equally likely and imminently reasonable.
I’m fine to get dog piled here but I think you’ve assumed bad faith where there is no reason to make that assumption, especially after the user attempted to disambiguate in exactly the way I’ve described.
I’m also curious to see how Canadian usage of American tech companies has changed. I wonder if it got more people to quit Twitter finally.
Look, fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain, and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger, and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy, he thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and a tiger had him for dinner.
And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations—and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there weren’t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do.
And from those humble beginnings we learned to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favors the paranoid. Even here in the twenty-first century you can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now, we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.
All that is to say, categorially, no shit Sherlock. Way to summarize our inheritance with a snarky comment. I hope your brain released endorphins on your behalf when you post this drivel - then at least someone can appreciate your hard work, but you’re neither clever, original, kind, or creative. You’re just also seeing eyes somewhere in the bushes that aren’t there too. OP had every reason to call you out for your asinine response; you’re a nexus of singularly offensive manners accompanying a lame username. Probably a good idea to take a mental health day from the internet.
You’re like the caveman who thought they saw eyes in the bushes only for there to be a clearing behind it.Stay on high-alert all the time. I’m sure it will do you good.
Translation:
You’re not engaging with my whataboutism on my terms. Whaaaaaaaaaaa!!
What about whataboutism?
Brudda, it’s a geniune question. The article talks about physical products. I’m wondering how it going on other fronts i.e the non-physical. A real answer would be appreciated instead “I’m on high alert and will interpret any answer I see as malevolence”.
It wasn’t only tactical whataboutism, it was literal verbatim whataboutism.
That is the very specific method to get me to dismiss you.
No, you’re not. You’re attempting to undermine the central message of the story.
Something that you could have looked up. But oh no, you had to deliver a whataboutism turd of a comment.
You’re fooling absolutely no one.
Brudda.
What? There’s absolutely no way we can interpret intent in this case - this could genuinely be a fair question asked in good faith.
“What about US tech?” could be interpreted a number of ways, from “are Canadians also divesting from US tech?” to “But Canadians aren’t divesting from US tech, what about that?”. There’s no reason to believe this person is going after the latter case here when “ok that’s retail, how’s tech doing?” is equally likely and imminently reasonable.
I’m fine to get dog piled here but I think you’ve assumed bad faith where there is no reason to make that assumption, especially after the user attempted to disambiguate in exactly the way I’ve described.
I’m also curious to see how Canadian usage of American tech companies has changed. I wonder if it got more people to quit Twitter finally.
🙄
You’re like the caveman who thought they saw eyes in the bushes only for there to be a clearing behind it.
Stay on high-alert all the time. I’m sure it will do you good.
All that is to say, categorially, no shit Sherlock. Way to summarize our inheritance with a snarky comment. I hope your brain released endorphins on your behalf when you post this drivel - then at least someone can appreciate your hard work, but you’re neither clever, original, kind, or creative. You’re just also seeing eyes somewhere in the bushes that aren’t there too. OP had every reason to call you out for your asinine response; you’re a nexus of singularly offensive manners accompanying a lame username. Probably a good idea to take a mental health day from the internet.
Translation:
You’re not engaging with my whataboutism on my terms. Whaaaaaaaaaaa!!