I think you missed the point. In my view, you would then be the "provocateur". By this crowd stating in multiple stories and comments, that they know what is best for us and they need the government to do their bidding, is not being "provocateurs"?
I think you missed the point. In my view, you would then be the "provocateur". By this crowd stating in multiple stories and comments, that they know what is best for us and they need the government to do their bidding, is not being "provocateurs"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but it's coming across like your stance is " man writes sub stack focused on problems and solutions in our world with a pretty clear focus on less cars, less mansions, less consumption, many many commenters discuss but are mostly in agreement ( which is why they are here in the first place!), a couple of regular commenters always piss all over the original presentation and your stance is that the original presenter and most of the commenters are provocateurs and you are more on side with googly boo and igneous rock guy. Am I getting that right? Because if I am I'll just stop right here.
Let me try to explain in a better way. If in my view that the commenters here are trying to get the government to force me to live a certain way against my will, would that not be provocative?
After that is said, calling commenters names really doesn't hold your argument in the best light.
I think you missed the point. In my view, you would then be the "provocateur". By this crowd stating in multiple stories and comments, that they know what is best for us and they need the government to do their bidding, is not being "provocateurs"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but it's coming across like your stance is " man writes sub stack focused on problems and solutions in our world with a pretty clear focus on less cars, less mansions, less consumption, many many commenters discuss but are mostly in agreement ( which is why they are here in the first place!), a couple of regular commenters always piss all over the original presentation and your stance is that the original presenter and most of the commenters are provocateurs and you are more on side with googly boo and igneous rock guy. Am I getting that right? Because if I am I'll just stop right here.
Let me try to explain in a better way. If in my view that the commenters here are trying to get the government to force me to live a certain way against my will, would that not be provocative?
After that is said, calling commenters names really doesn't hold your argument in the best light.
Okay. Now I understand. You're a libertarian. Did you know that libertarianism was a political system invented by 12 year old boys?
well, THERE'S a response sure to keep a conversation going...
Apparently!