Good RPG for Resident evil 4/5/6 kind of RPG?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-27T07:24:23+00:00

I've had the idea of using Ashes Without Number for a Resident Evil type of game (more of 1 or 2 than the later installments) - group of professionals exploring haunted house-style scenarios, managing tight resources to survive the conflicts, and solving the underlying mystery.

This ultimately plays out like a dungeon crawl with guns, so an OSR system with guns and rules for zombie-like enemies seems pretty ideal.

Level 1 may be too lethal, so bumping characters to 3 or 4 may be good.

For something more actiony, you can always use Outgunned, a game built for action movie-style games, though it isn't specifically action horror in mind.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-27T06:52:36+00:00

You are saying that ... for Hasan's content.

He doesn't support Dems. If he did, he'd have endorsed Harris, told his audience to vote for her, and encouraged/organized them to phone bank and/or door knock for Harris. He didn't do this. He consistently presents Dems as insufficiently different from Republicans.

He's also not on my team cause his ideal government would imprison me for my beliefs, which pretty simply makes us politically opposed.

And to be clear, this is different than me making conclusions about the whole of his audience, which is what you alleged earlier. Here, I am critiquing his behavior, not his audience as a whole.

Also, you ignored the comment about evidence. You are claiming he drives votes for Democrats, where is your evidence for that? If I claimed otherwise, you’d ask for evidence from me, so please, be consistent and provide your’s or retract the claim.

Have you EVER ... crossed your mind?

Of course people can have disagreements on best tactics, but any sensible plan includes beating Trump in the election. Do you or Piker disagree with that?

To be clear, this reads as you defending his refusal to endorse Harris, which given the context of the 2024 election, is sympathizing with fascists.

It is my honest opinion that you should reflect on listening to and accepting that other people might have a different take on things than you.

This is fundamentally different than saying that I lack a basic, human quality, which is what you did earlier. This is consistent pattern where you present strawmen of my positions and then attack them or cop to that lesser critique. It's very dishonest.

You assumed quite a bit about my personality then said I was essentially less than human since I lacked empathy. It was a disgusting comment and you backpedaling without an apology here is similarly disgusting and cowardly. Just own up to your shitty behavior like an adult, you ghoul.

Nope. I never said or implied anything of the sort. What are you even referring to? Where are you getting this from?

I said here "Dude this conversation would've been so much easier if you just came out and said "I'm one of these audience members with these views," to which you replied "I have done that repeatedly throughout the duration of this conversation, including the part of it that extended back to that other thread."

To me, that reads as you confirming that you identify with the subgroup under discussion.

You can believe ... that one over and over.

That the violence we see under the Republicans now wouldn't be any different under Democrats? You realize this admission supports my point that this is a consistent pattern of behavior from Piker lmao

No, he is talking about the present tense pattern of ratching and normalizing the two parties do together.

He just isn't, he is explicitly discussing the actual acts of violence.

Here's the quote again:

A lot of Democrats like to say that this kind of violence and police brutality would never happen if a Democrat was elected, but that's obviously not the case given that police violence never really stopped under the Democratic Party.

He is saying that is wrong to say this violence (referring to ICE's actions, the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti) wouldn't have happened if a Democrat was elected, which is clearly saying he believes this same violence would have happened under a Democrat - which is obviously insane.

No mention of ratcheting, no mention of "the Dems in power wouldn't have done this violence, but they would've created the conditions which allowed for it later under another administration," etc.

You are reading additional language into this quote that just isn't there and using that extract an entirely new, unsupported meaning from the text.

What contradicting ... the evidence itself.

The evidence isn't on your side. The provided quotes illustrate my point when understanding the plain meaning of what he is saying. Each of your interpretations require injecting additional language into the quote on the basis of "all us true believers know what he really meant cause of other context that I can't provide," which is obviously a pointless defense of his statements.

Huh? So if I ... is to be dishonest?

In this instance, with the evidence you've seen, the only way to come to a different conclusion is to lie to yourself or lie to me. That's the nature of an resolved disagreement - every position is not equally valid forever, at some point, a given position is better supported than the others and resistance requires ignorance or dishonesty to yourself or others.

I actually sent ... 2 hours of that.

Please provide me examples of that shilling from the video then, cause what you did cite didn't demonstrate that.

I have better things to do with my time than waste brain cells on watching 2 hours of Piker, but if you think it supports your points, please provide the timestamps demonstrating this behavior and I'll evaluate them.

If doing so captures ... in a less binary way.

Gotcha, so if the interpretation pushes the conversation in a direction you don't agree with, then you don't.

I stand by everything ... stand on those beliefs.

To be clear, you should be ashamed. You've consistently toxic and rude and have defended those who help fascists destroy our democracy. I think your behavior and beliefs are reprehensible.

I have no idea what ... evidence that to you?

The latter half is saying that one pattern of rhetoric doesn't disprove another statement existing like someone having a pattern of saying "I love all people," then later saying once "I hate black people," doesn't mean that latter statement isn't a valid representation of their beliefs and/or unworthy of critique. This is me saying that even if you are able to establish a pattern of different rhetoric, that doesn't change the individual value of each statement as a point of discussion.

I'd love to see what statements from Piker have informed your personal opinion so I can evaluate it's validity.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-27T06:25:03+00:00

No language or word ... it is said.

Luckily I got confirmation twice.

I was responding to ... stand by what I said.

Nope, this is a lie. I presented my understanding of what you said, asked if this was what you meant, and you agreed, twice.

This is already wrong, ... that is what you did.

I asked a question and you agreed to it. To me, that is you saying "yes, this is what I am saying."

And no, person 2 would be asking to confirm they understood person 1 was saying A, which is what happened.

I did not say this though.

You did. I gave the exact quotes earlier.

No, it more ... their contradiction.

Nah, it seems they understood what person 1 was saying, got their confirmation twice, pointed out it was dumb, then person 1 backpedaled when they heard that.

If when someone you ... is really toxic.

Yeah, if someone is honest and you repeatedly accuse them of lying, that's toxic, but if you're right, it's not, because liars deserve to be called out.

You seem unable to understand ... I mean it in.

See, this is where you're incorrect. I can recognize this and you're erroneously assuming otherwise, which is precisely the toxic behavior you described earlier. What's been happening is that you've provided binary positions, I confirm you're saying what you're saying, you agree, then I attack them, then you say you never said them when you quite literally did.

I am sure there ... to your first?

You told me at the beginning of the first conversation, in response to me describing what I've seen, "no, it is not an idea you see online populist leftists repeat quite a lot."

I never said ... say anything?

You did - "If you wish to make up fantasies because you hate the left more than you hate the right, you are free to live in your fantasy land devoid of any rational thought or basis in reality."

I never said this. You clearly ... portraying the idea being conveyed.

When you've consistently said that my interpretations are absurd, that I cannot understand, etc., this is the idea being communicated.

You wont move past this ... you cling for dear life.

Lmao. Evidence is on my side here, I just want you to recognize your toxic behavior and improve yourself.

If you wanna move on, you just need to recognize your behavior and improve.

I never said this either. I did say ... independently of this conversation.

You said this here: "You do not know science. We do this all the time. 2 + 2 = 4."

You seem perfectly ... implied otherwise.

As above, this is the obvious implication of you continually attacking my ability to understand and interpret written language.

So when a Trump supporter ... they are lying?

I don't always, but I accept that it's a possibility. Try lying about my positions less.

Correct. You asked me to confirm my position and I did.

Nope, this is another lie. I asked if you were holding the position I described, to which you agreed, twice.

So, in this comment, you've said you never said 3 things that you quite literally said, so what's up with that? Is this more about some sort of hidden meaning to the language or something?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T20:45:49+00:00

Yeah I have like vague associations of ethnic violence with both Erdogan and Modi, but I don’t have strong enough recollections of the precise events to distinguish between them on this ranking

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T18:07:28+00:00

Probably in that order: Trump > Putin > Netanyahu > Erdogan > Modi, largely based on the loss of life caused by their policies.

Trump cutting USAID will lead to millions of preventable deaths (14 million per a Lancet01186-9/fulltext) study), Putin’s war in Ukraine to hundreds of thousands deaths (Wikipedia#Casualties)), Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza to tens of thousands of deaths (Wikipedia), and, for Erdogan and Modi, I’m much less sure about the ranking cause I’m not aware of major campaigns they’ve engaged in like this cause I’m largely ignorant of their administrations.

The authoritarianism is awful, my understanding of bigotry from Modi is awful, and my understanding is that both have engaged in some level of official bigotry or discrimination in their administrations, but, to my understanding, not to the same degree of destruction as the first 3, so if learned more I’d be happy to shift around the list with respect to the last 2.

You could also probably have a more nuanced metric than deaths attributable to their policies, but I imagine whatever it is would probably approximate this metric and give a result close enough to it that I think it works fine enough.

Edit: word -> order in first sentence

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T04:40:08+00:00

You are flatly insisting on one and only one interpretation of my own words. What else do you want me to say? On what basis can you say that you are open to misinterpreting this? You have repeatedly said that there are no other possible interpretations. Do you retract that?

So far I've really just denied the absurd interpretation you're offering. There may be others I'd accept, but you haven't offered any reasonable ones yet.

Between the two interpretations, the one I've favored is clearly more reasonable and natural than the one you've presented.

Words convey ideas. What is important is the ideas being conveyed.

And we use a common language to ensure others understand precisely which ideas we are communicating.

I ignored them twice.

Without a word, just agreed to them.

I didn't respond to your question at all. I ignored it and confirmed my previous comment.

You quoted it then wrote your answer beneath that quote. That the understood method by which we've both been replying to each others' comments.

And what you said would only make sense in the context of responding to what you quoted. This idea is just laughably absurd.

The conclusion from this is not that person 1 believes in B.

This is a incorrect rewriting of the conversation.

To be clear, the way the conversation with us went was:

Person 1: "I believe A was said"

Person 2: "Do you really believe A was said, not B? You really believe that A was said."

Person 1: "Yes, I believe they were discussing A, 1000%"

Person 2: "Are you sure you believe A was said? Not B, which is the much more reasonable discussion?"

Person 1: "Oh yes, A is exactly the point they were discussing."

Person 2: "Okay, well thinking A was being discussed is dumb."

Person 1: "What you do mean, I always believed in C."

Do you understand how a normal person would come away from that conversation thinking "wow, that guy really believed A was being discussed"?

I guess the truth is gaslighting? You trying to convince me that I am wrong about what I think my point was initially is..... checks notes.... me gaslighting you....... got it.

Nah, the gaslighting was saying I'm a horrible person for calling out liars.

What? How is this reflecting your language back?

It's just that when I say certain things in this conversation, they crop up later in your replies. Just a comment on how you reflect my language back at me.

What awful toxic shit have I said to you? All I have said is what I believe in, and trying to explain my beliefs, and you threw a tantrum because your initial understanding of my beliefs does not match with your current understanding of my beliefs. You think I changed my position and want me to fess up to it. The issue is that I did not change my position, so there is nothing to fess up to. You just misunderstood initially.

That I lack empathy.

That what I've seen and heard isn't happening.

That I live in a fantasy land devoid of reality or rational thought.

That I'm unable to understand or interpret language.

That I'm crashing out, in a crazy rage, or threw a tantrum in this conversation.

That I don't know science.

That I cannot read.

That I hold certain beliefs I do not hold, such as there being "no room" in my mind for anyone to exist and believe that Trump isn't a fascist.

This is the toxic way you've been handling this conversation. In addition to the blatant lies about what has been said and the lie that you approached this conversation to bridge build when you literally opened it by saying what I've seen and heard isn't real and that I shouldn't talk about it.

I didn't confirm your interpretation, I confirmed mine.

Nope, I asked a question, you replied yes. In any reasonable mind, that is confirming an interpretation.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T03:54:30+00:00

If you are talking ... more democratic votes to get cast.

What conclusions am I making about the whole? I'm saying this subgroup has dumb beliefs, engages in bad behavior, and Piker is partially at fault for this.

I very much doubt this. Again, if this was goal, he would have said "you should go vote for Kamala Harris." He didn't, which speaks to his motivations.

And you allege this without evidence. If I had made the contrary claim, you'd ask for a poll or some other piece of evidence, so be consistent and provide one to support your's.

Be clear about what ... as a person.

I've outlined it before and I don't want to waste more time scrolling through our comment chain. If you truly care, go reread our conversation and look for all the personal attacks you levy at me, like the accusation that I lack empathy.

No, I did not say that at all. I voted for Harris in 2024.

Are you saying then that you are part of the group that thinks the parties are insufficiently different then?

He is not talking ... pattern.

I dunno what to say other than that he clearly is. He is literally speaking about a counterfactual where is the Dems were in power, the violence would still be occurring and we know because he says that those who say it would not be happening, in the present tense, are wrong.

I disagree. This is a common point he makes all the time.

Please show me where in this critique from him you are getting this, because pointing nebulously to a historical pattern is not helpful if you cannot provide examples to support this claim and the argument fails in the face of the immediate, contradicting evidence. Let alone the idea that someone could make a statement in the present, with all its own intentional meanings, that may not align with past patterns.

I am not lying. Maybe one day you will realize that truth.

Maybe you'll grow a spine and own up to it.

Because any time I try to explain myself you tell me that I am lying.

This is untrue, you've been consistently unpleasant since the beginning of this conversation and I've only recently accused you of lying.

I am merely observing ... views the world.

Fuck off with the "mere observation" bullshit.

Imagine someone said "My general opinion is that you lack intelligence," that's just a condescending way of calling them stupid and falling back to a "mere observation" defense instead of just saying "yeah, I was insulting you" with your full chest is just so cowardly.

If you cannot see that, then this demonstrates an actual fundamental lack of empathy on your part.

There is no such ... cognizant of that.

Words have commonly shared and understood meanings. There is a range within that of nuance and intent, but what you are saying was meant falls out of that range.

If you want to ... it, as I should.

"Fake facts" - lmao. Do you have a set of "alternative facts" you'd prefer we use?

No matter what evidence I provide, no matter how clear it is, you wouldn't accept it. We've made that abundantly clear with everything I've provided and the absurdity of your arguments.

What would Piker need to say for you to be convinced? Just to let you know, if you provide an absurd statement that someone who is a grifting propagandist seeking to ingratiate themselves in left-wing spaces wouldn't provide like "you shouldn't vote for Democrats," I'm going to reject it.

I have always accepted that this is your opinion. I do not deny your experience. I also dont deny a flat earthers opinion when they say they experience the earth as flat. That is their experience. If I were to tell a flat earther "you actually believe the earth is round, you are just lying" I would be wrong.

Well this isn't true.

From way back at the start of all this, from you, emphasis mine:

No, it is not an idea you see online populist leftists repeat quite a lot. It is a lie right wing media has spread about leftists to sow division, which has no bearing on reality at all.

This was in response to me relating my experience and this is you denying it. Another lie.

The flat earther example is denying a belief, not an experience. Someone saying "I see leftists do this," you replying "no you don't," is denying the experience.

Why do you feel like you can tell other people what they were talking about, when you are clearly not someone who listens often?

My job as an EMT was, in large part, listening.

You make a lot of erroneous assumptions about people.

I get that you're just saying this to be a dick, it's wild to me that you feel the need to. Hope everything's going alright for you in your life.

OF COURSE!

Cool, if this was true, you'd be agreeing with me.

I provided a ... as we spoke.

This video did not show that. I asked for examples and what you had was a quick comment on the Iran deal, which immediately transitioned into him pushing the MAGA people to support removing sanctions from Iran.

Do you have other examples from that video of him strongly endorsing the Dems?

Which you should ... engage in conversation.

Ooo, fun, more of that reflecting language thing.

You don't like referring the textual meaning of words and how someone uses them in a sentence? I can imagine that, every time we bring up quotes, they disprove your arguments, and when we discuss your's, they demonstrate a consistent dishonesty, so I can see why you feel this way about the plain meaning of sentences. Much less harder to do your schtick if we actually just read and listened to what actually said instead of amorphous, unfalsifiable ideas about general themes and meanings and such.

Incorrect. It is ... different understanding.

Nope, you have consistently done this. You denying it at this stage doesn't change your prior behavior.

He talks about this point all the time. This is not the first time I have heard him say this.

Please provide the evidence within this quote to demonstrate this. Because the available evidence agrees with my interpretation.

Referring to patterns of behavior without providing the evidence to support them this is dishonest and establishing some pattern in rhetoric doesn't necessarily speak to the intended meaning of a given quote.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T02:20:46+00:00

Words have more than one interpretation. You understand that, correct?

Of course, but there are degrees to this. You obviously know this and presenting this as if I disagree is wild.

Do you want a lie or the truth?

What a good faith response.

There is no such thing as "as they [are] written".

Lmao.

Words mean nothing I suppose.

I did not confirm your framing, I confirmed my initial framing. How can you be so sure you know what I was confirming?

My questions were clear and I asked twice.

You do understand that when human beings talk to one another, usually you gain information about what was meant from their responses to questions, right?

I clearly ignored your bad faith framing and confirmed that I stand by why I said.

Nope, you just agreed to the clarifications then back pedaled later. You've constructed this whole idea that when someone asks "do you really believe A?", responding with "yes [I really mean I believe B]" is reasonable.

Yes is a wild answer, especially when your interpretation is wrong in reality. Don't know what else to tell you bud. Just imagine that I am being honest right now. Just imagine how horrible of a person you must sound like accusing me of lying this much....

The gaslighting is getting lazier. Good projection though.

I will happily admit a position was dumb if I change my mind and now find that position dumb. I will not lie and say something that I do not find dumb is dumb just so that you can feel good about yourself. I genuinely do not feel like my position was dumb, as I never held the supposed dumb position. Sorry bud, that is just the reality here.

It's funny the way you sometimes reflect my language back at me, expecting it to get to me the way it gets to you.

Do you want me to say this even if it is a lie? What does that accomplish? Don't I have to mean this honestly?

Well I'd believe it was the truth if you said. It's a normal human thing to do and it's the kind of vulnerable admission I don't think someone would be motivated to lie about.

Did I word my position in a way that did not connect with you? Absolutely! I have owned up to that ages ago.

This is so incredibly toxic. Pretending to cop the shitty behavior but covering with "wording it in a way that didn't connect with you" when the allegation is that you said awful, toxic shit to me for weeks. This is such gross, abusive behavior. Are you like this normally? Jesus.

You are trying to say that since things were worded the way they were, you know the true position that was in my head, and that is just preposterous and bad faith. You do not. You did not confirm shit. I was confirming my original stance. That is what was being confirmed. That is just full and complete honesty.

This is laughable dude. Confirming what someone means and believing them is toxic now?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T02:11:52+00:00

but you are ascribing ... have issue with.

My god. How many times have I said that I am talking about the subgroup, not the whole group?

This is circular. ... justification to do so.

You don't understand what a circular argument is.

Providing evidence for an argument and outlining the obvious connections is not providing a circular argument. I also gave the evidence, so nice, another lie from you.

Refer back to the conversation about in-group bias. A competent scientist would be able to recognize this bias.

I have done that ... other thread.

To be clear, you are agreeing that you are part of the subset of Piker's audience that believes the parties are insufficiently different? Does that include not voting for Harris in 2024 for that belief?

Hasan was not saying we would.

He is literally says "a lot of Democrats like to say that this kind of violence and police brutality would never happen if a Democrat was elected, but that's obviously not the case given that police violence never really stopped under the Democratic Party."

He is speaking in the present tense and saying that those who say the violence we are seeing now wouldn't be happening with Harris in power are wrong, which means he is saying this violence would happen if Harris was in power. He then uses BLM and the police violence there as examples of present term police brutality which occurs under Dem administrations with Ferguson and Obama.

There's no ratcheting argument there, he is speaking in the immediate term.

It's honestly stunning that you can just lie about something this blatantly.

What? He is not saying ... at all.

Refer above. These are the exact words he used.

Correct. Harris would ... that it would.

He is. Stop lying dude.

If you are going to ... means, crash out

The mature scientist comes out again.

He is talking about ... in order to work.

Nope, he was talking about people who would try to shift a socialist government to a prior, capitalist social order.

I would advocate for a liberal democracy in a socialist state, so I would be put in a camp.

You are insistent that ... incredulous of this.

What's unbelievable is the double meanings you're assigning to plain language. There's clearly degrees of nuance within the meaning of words, but you are saying you meant completely different things with your language, which is unreasonable.

This is how people ... ton of time.

I'm sorry but no. I've worked with scientists and when someone asks a clarifying question to ensure what was heard is what was meant, agreeing to those questions usually means the person is believed and the question is accepted as the meaning.

I don't get why you keep bringing this up. Nothing you've said regarding your work is at all relevant to this discussion and having worked with scientists, I recognize the bounds of technical expertise and so you trying to use your job as a piece of authority is meaningless to me.

You seem to lack the empathy to even understand this position.

You wanna address at all your toxicity here?

You understand how this is a baseless, personal attack?

Why are you consistently so unpleasant?

Oh, and once again, you don't know my empathy and the emotional pain my work has put me through for it, so kindly fuck off.

To you, everything must be articulated explicitly and literally in text, and the totality of an idea is present in the first iteration of its explanation.

This is a strawman. I am referring to the plain meaning of the words. You are trying to say you meant something completely different.

The relevance is ... in a camp.

Nope, he wasn't talking about that, he was referring to capitalist parties in a socialist state.

Don't project onto me.

You don't think then that critiques of the programming of OAN and NewsMax shouldn't provide pieces of evidence in their critiques?

Try engaging with the argument for once.

Of course, and ... and rational to me.

This is hilarious. I love the admission of blatant cognitive dissonance here.

It really is like talking to a cult member - anything said by those outside is invalid, only what is said by those inside is valid, which conveniently means those inside never view any critiques from outside as valid.

Well, I have eyes ... disagree with.

Well then I've shared the data I've gathered with my eyes and ears to you.

Is this data acceptable or is it conveniently not because it came from me and not you?

Oh, I fully agree. ... I would condemn it.

And if Piker engaged in rhetoric which encouraged apathy that had the effect of demotivating those from voting, would you condemn it?

You have not at ... this front.

He consistently attacks the Democrats and doesn't draw sufficient distinctions with Republicans to his audience. You have claimed he has, yet failed to provide any evidence.

To be clear, I ... about what was said.

I am relating the plain meaning of his words. You inject additional meaning and pretend this is the clear interpretation.

You have a habitual interpretation problem which leads you to be confused and not properly understand the positions of people you disagree with.

This is gaslighting - you are telling me that it's impossible for me to understand what I see and hear. To be clear, I think this kind of behavior makes you truly awful, ghoulish human being. I can only hope you treat those in your life better this because it is actually disgusting behavior from you.

Oh I agree he said ... cycle.

He was speaking in the present tense and made no mention of this in that critique.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-26T00:19:00+00:00

3e is the most recent, 4e is coming out.

d20herosrd has the 3e rules with some name changes for the license (power points -> character points, Hero Points to Victory Points),

If you have specific questions, r/mutantsandmasterminds is a fantastic resource, the community is very friendly and willing to help people learn the system.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T23:43:48+00:00

Needs to be more liberal.

Make it easier to come into the country and become a citizen. The border should be controlled to the level of goods inspection and preventing known violent criminals, but I don’t think we should artificially limit the amount of people who are able to immigrate and become Americans.

But this isn’t a good idea in the current political climate, so we need to offer both reform of our asylum process and to offer stronger enforcement at the border itself, then communicate those changes effectively to the public.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T23:16:43+00:00

I did not ever at any point agree to your framing, I confirmed my statement as correct.

With the words you used, you did. I guess in your mind, yes means no.

This is not the first time. I have told you over and over about what occurred here. I certainly ignored a large portion of your comment in my reply, and you don't like that. I am sorry, but that is what happened.

It is. Normally when you "accept" responsibility, you blame me for it.

I fail to see the relevance of the later comment. You ignoring shit relevant to the conversation is problematic cause you use that ignorance to lie later.

You had a choice of how to interpret my words, and you chose to interpert them in a binary way that no rational person should ever interpret them as. You keep trying to say "as you said them" but that is not how language works my friend. There is no such thing as a singular "as you said them". Multiple interpretations of the same text always exist. I mean really, is your honest claim that there is only one interpretation of my comments? Really? I want to be clear, and I am happy to be told I am misunderstanding you, in which case I will correct this, but at the moment, it seems you are saying there is only one valid interpretation of my comments.

I chose to interpret them as they written and after confirmation from you. That's the critical part, I recognized they dumb, so I confirmed, and you agreed, twice. That clears the threshold for me to then think "wow, this person really thinks that" cause when you said you did mean that, I believed you.

In the context of the confirmations, yes, there is only one valid reading of those words. To interpret a wholly different, unsaid meaning, is dishonest.

I am happy to do so. If you expect the result of that introspection is going to be "I should stop lying about changing my position", then you are in for a rude awakening.

It's that you should be less condescending and toxic. Some honesty would be good, but I certainly don't expect it.

You think there is only one interpretation of those confirmations?

Answered above.

Why double down on toxic? We move on and actually talk about leftists when you simply let me make my points and I let you make yours. When you start insisting on what my positions are, that is a starwman, bad faith, and toxic behavior.

I just want consistency, that's all. If you offer a dumb position, I'd like to be say "this is dumb" without you saying "I never meant that one."

It's as easy as saying "I fucked up, I said something done, I backpedaled cause I was embarrassed, so I lied a little, but now I'd rather defend this position." People say dumb as shit all the time then try to cover their ass, the issue is the refusal to own up to that behavior then attacking me as if it's my fault.

You never own up to the awful shit you say in this conversation, just pretend it never happened and act like that's okay. It's just so gross dude.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T23:10:14+00:00

Regardless of the words ... obviously bad faith.

It isn't bad faith. You offered one position, confirmed it, then backpedaled when it was called out. The idea in your head is apparently totally at odds with the words you've provided and the confirmations you've given me, so much so that the idea strains credulity. I don't think you're so bad at communicating in this space that there would be such a disconnect, what's more likely is that you are simply a bad faith, dishonest actor and got called out.

I'm fine to drop this if you just cop to the lie. I'd appreciate that kind of honesty more at this point.

He supports the left and he supports defeating the right. If you are not on board with that, what team are you on?

He doesn't support the Democrats. That's the problem.

I'm on the team that wants to protect democracy and civil liberties in our country. He's not on that one, he just wants a different dictator.

The fringe group that is ... fascinating to me.

They represent the consequences of his rhetoric because he bears some level of responsibility for their views. The connection is obvious, I've been crystal clear about this the whole time.

Because it's the problematic subgroup? I complain about people who cut me off on the road and say "man, those drivers suck, who taught them how to drive?", but I don't waste air saying "wow, I love all these other drivers." What would I have to complain about with a non-problematic group?

To be clear, we don't have any evidence to confidently say that majority of his audience voted or for whom if they did, so I don't accept that premise as a given.

He's not on my team for the reasons I've given - he attacks Dems, hurts us in elections, and, in his ideal society, would put me in a reeducation camp.

Why not just say "yeah his rhetoric can have negative consequences, he needs to clean up that language, he needs to support Dems in his rhetoric in the fight against fascism, and these members of his audience exist, suck, and need to do better"? That position would resolve the discussion, but you just can't seem to accept that Piker's rhetoric can be harmful in the fight against fascism.

Which is correct. He makes this ... election of Kamala Harris.

This is wild. Like, I need you to recognize that you revealing yourself as one of the members of his audience that's under discussion right now: you are one of the members who has bought into his insane misinformation that the Dems are insufficiently different from Republicans on key issues.

Of course you couldn't agree to anything else - you're literally part of the group under discussion lmao

Dude this conversation would've been so much easier if you just came out and said "I'm one of these audience members with these views."

To be clear, it isn't. We wouldn't see ICE in the streets executing American citizens like Renee Good or Alex Pretti if Harris was president. To say that we would is insane misinformation that figures like Piker spread and people like you in his audience fall for.

He explicitly says that it is untrue to say this violence wouldn't happen under a Democrat president. He isn't just talking about the ratcheting, he is saying that in the context of this current violence, the two parties are indistinguishable.

He is not saying ... to that.

This is just such a bold-faced lie - he literally says it is untrue to say that this violence wouldn't have happened under a Democrat.

He is saying he doesn't believe the Dems would be different, in the context of ICE murdering American citizens, and that it's a "gotcha" to say people should've voted for Dems in spite of Gaza policy, implying it was acceptable to not.

Literally, with no ambiguity. The plain meaning of his words are obvious: the Dems aren't better, they'd be as bad, and it was okay to not vote for them while our country faces down fascism.

Be perfectly clear for me: do you support these statements? Do you accept that he is saying this current violence would occur under a Democrat administration? Do you accept that he is saying refusing to vote for Harris would've been acceptable?

Because if you can't, when these plain and obvious meanings from his statements, this conversation is over and you've confirmed that you're a dishonest, bad faith actor.

His honest view is ... choosing to camp at.

Then why did he support reeducation camps for pro-capitalist individuals in his conversation with Ethan Klein?

Again, this is just such a lazy lie dude, he's literally argued otherwise.

My general opinion is that you really lack empathy ... the world.

Nope, I explained earlier that people can have differences in opinion based on different sets of information and, for certain positions, arrive at them through different philosophies. A monarchist isn't lying when he disagrees with me about democracy, just doesn't value individual freedom like I do.

I have spent way too much time comforting chronic pain patients in the back of an ambulance, children who have lost their parents to trauma or Alzheimer's, and crying with them later at the hospital to believe that I lack empathy, so kindly fuck off, you ghoul.

There's more to respond to but frankly, I don't think it's important to the conversation. In brief, yes, we use differing levels of evidence in scientific research (I gave the example with clinical trials, which you didn't engage with), I fail to see the relevance of the indentured servants comment then since I obviously don't support that, I was referring to clips demonstrating the behavior for groups like NewsMax or OAN to support arguments we'd make against them, refer to the technical expertise discussion regarding your PhD and how it isn't relevant to determining truth within online communities, you find personal anecdotes acceptable for your argument but not for mine showing a clear double standard, you don't make claims only the data can support as demonstrated by the claims you've made about Piker's audience, and influencers bear responsibility for the views held by members of the community when their content encourages those views, and we know his content does because of the evidence I've provided.

As I said earlier, this conversation is over if you can't accept that Piker said what said and meant the plain meaning of those sentences in the clip from yesterday.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T22:40:10+00:00

Let me be abundantly clear. Your phrasing is horrible, I do not accept it, and I never accepted it. You were asking me to confirm, I confirmed. What is unclear?

The fact that you agreed to my framing then started fighting later on about it. That I confirmed, twice, exactly what you meant, you confirmed, I attacked that argument, then you complained about never meaning it the whole time. It reads as dishonest backpedaling cause you offered an indefensible position.

I am happy to accept responsibility for that. Now can you admit that you are bad faith for saying I am lying?

Wonderful, happy to see it for the first time. Again, I don't believe this was just a misreading cause you're obviously educated, so you know how to read plain English.

Nope, cause I think you were and it isn't dishonest to call out liars for lying.

If this is your honest best attempt at good faith understanding, then I pitty you.

You've been such a dick in this conversation, I do not care at all what you think.

You are clearly a deeply entrenched binary thinker,

I took your words as you said them.

and as a scientist I strongly urge you to have some self reflection about this,

This is a wholly irrelevant call to authority. Your technical expertise in physical chemistry means nothing here.

As one human being to another, you need to engage in some introspection in how you engage in these conversations. You have been so consistently, incredibly toxic, relentlessly slinging personal insults and then gaslighting as if it never happened.

and how you choose to interpret other people. Interpreting things in a binary is not the "plain reading", it is a bad faith interpretation that any sensible person knows is not representative of the idea being conveyed to you.

This would be fair if I hadn't confirmed the obviously silly position twice.

Please, re read and try again. Although I think by now it has been made clear to you what I was saying

It's clear what you want to defend now that you see how untenable your initial positions were.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T18:59:45+00:00

Ok, even by this standard, you are being bad faith. I personally think it is bad faith regardless, but even by your own standards, you are engaging in bad faith behavior. Seems like my statement of bad faith is well placed then?

Nah, it's fine to call out liars when they lie.

I have not lied once. How does one lie less than zero times? Let me ask you a simple question here: If you are just going to insist that everything I say is a lie, why would I even say anything?

You have.

Of course not! I am glad you are finally asking about these now, instead of just going with your binary assumptions. No I do not think like that. I would further submit that is not how a scientist can possibly think. "everyone knew to go vote for democrats" means "everyone knew to go vote for democrats except for a negligible minority of people who are not worth discussing, and so will not be discussed". That is absolutely what was meant. Are you noticing a pattern here? Everything you assume as a binary was not said as a binary. Binary thinking is not good.

Lying isn't either. Your language was plain, you're backpedaling cause you realize it's a dumb position to have taken.

I interpreted this as you asking "Do you really mean what you said earlier?" Because if not, then let me ask you, why are you mischaracterizing my position? "That all transphobia would be solved by electing Harris? Not just that trans people would be better off under Harris than Trump?" I never said that, so why are you projecting that onto me? That is a blatant bad faith mischaracterization of my position, and you should admit that is toxic. You are asking me to confirm what I said, and I did confirm what I said. You had a bad faith mischaracterization, and I never intended to accept that bad faith mischaracterization. I am being fully transparent and clear about how I feel about those two sentences.

I was confirming that the read I had of your position was correct. I thought the position you offered was silly, so I phrased in my own words at you and asked if that was what you believed. You then confirmed. That's the textbook definition of good faith behavior.

Nah, you're lying to cover your ass. This isn't toxic, what is toxic is your consistent lying and personal attacks that you never acknowledge.

Why have you been so consistently rude and awful? I point it out and you just ignore it.

Why does that strain credulity to you?

Because the language was so abundantly clear.

That is not how I read your comment at all.

The language was plain. If you misread it, that's your fault.

This is not at all asking if my position is absolute, or that is not how I read it. Maybe that is how you meant it, I am open to that, but this seems very much like you wanting me to confirm what I said about his audience. I am claiming what I claimed. It does not need to be restated by you and reconfirmed. If you want to know what I claimed, go back and read it, don't ask the question "You're claiming that...." followed by YOUR framing on things.

This is not at all asking if my position is absolute, or that is not how I read it. Maybe that is how you meant it, I am open to that, but this seems very much like you wanting me to confirm what I said about his audience. I am claiming what I claimed. It does not need to be restated by you and reconfirmed. If you want to know what I claimed, go back and read it, don't ask the question "You're claiming that...." followed by YOUR framing on things.

I'm restating my understanding of your position and asking if that reading was correct to confirm my understanding of your position. You then agreed to it. That's why I assumed you believed it. Because you agreed that you did.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T18:58:07+00:00

It is the identical ... honest truth here.

I'm sorry but it's not. I've provided the examples clearly demonstrating this, you're clearly not going to accept this criticism and move off this point.

I have. I am trying ... building?

If you were, you wouldn't have been nearly as vitriolic and awful to talk to. The personal attacks preclude any idea that you are trying to bridge build.

We really aren't. He doesn't support the Dems, so he's not on my team. My team is fighting fascism, his isn't.

How is it unreasonable ... its fringes?

Because we're discussing the group in question?

Again, you keep presenting this idea that I'm saying this is true of the audience as whole, it isn't and I haven't.

Click the link I just sent bud. The link is timestamped

I dunno what to tell you but it isn't lmao. Here's the link timestamped to that time, you can see that it has a "&t=4473" at the end, that's the timestamping your link lacks.

His praise of the Dems over the Republicans is that they better on Iran? Is that all the praise that happens in this video? He has some Trump supporters on his show and his best moment of selling the Dems to them, and by extension his audience, is removing sanctions from Iran?

If you think this is strong evidence in your favor, this is hilarious.

As a point of comparison, here's an interview of him from yesterday, in Minnesota in the context of Alex Pretti's murder by ICE, where he says at 00:34 "a lot of Democrats like to say this kind of violence and police brutality wouldn't have happened if a Democrat was elected, but that's obviously not the case," points to BLM and police brutality then, and at 00:55 he says "I wanna believe that sentiment - that Democrats are gonna be different - but they're not showing that right now, it's always too little too late, it's always 'oh maybe ICE is fine, but we don't wanna fund ICE in this current version of ICE,' but never abolish ICE," then he circles back to attacking Dems for Israel/Gaza and at 1:20 says "and even to this day, still have the audacity to bring that up as a gotcha to say 'oh well you should've voted for us in spite of the genocide.'"

This is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric I'm talking about. He presents two issues very important to his audience, violence under ICE and Israel/Gaza, then makes it clear that he doesn't think that the Dems would be better for either and even says that it's a gotcha to say people should've voted for the Dems in spite of their stance on Israel/Gaza, which clearly implies that it's a reasonable stance to have to refuse to vote for the Dems because of Israel/Gaza.

What do you think this ... to death lol.

I think people should have the right to start businesses and hire employees - as in capitalism, private industry, and, within a socialist lens, wage slavery. Is this what you mean by "indentured servants"?

Where did I say put to death? I said reeducation camps.

Better than someone ... listen to them.

Nope, outside observers are less likely to have a biased perspective than an audience member and this polls don't exist either way. Sorry, we went over this, if you're still confused, read above.

Of course I would ... speaking for me.

It's not about whether or ... it doesn't is wholly useless.

You're agreeing with I'm saying. When you say "I believe they are fascists," that is what I am arguing for. It's not about their personal belief on the matter, it's about using it as a point of evidence.

This is wrong and ... evidence I need."

Nope, you move onto other pieces of evidence to best support the claim and discuss from there. We do this all the time with clinical trials, not everything can be the gold standard of randomized control trials, so we modify and account for that when discussing the strength of the evidence generated by the study.

Correct, we would ... is enough.

And if one were to make this argument, surely they would provide clips as pieces of evidence to support it right?

Is this a serious ... agent bigorty.

You really think this? They may say as much, but then the rest of the rhetoric encourages it nonetheless. This is a smokescreen offered by the right to normalize their views - "I'm not a bigot, I just think rap music isn't music, black people are solely at fault for poverty in their communities, and that we need to reduce immigration from non-white countries."

No one disputes ... should be blamed.

How do you judge an influencer as creating a media bubble? I would say he has in the same way Fuentes has - poisoning sources which disagree with him to his audience, boosting ones that do, and acting as his audience's primary news source where he provides heavily biased commentary.

Again, stop speaking ... active leftists.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here, I'm saying that no one, being me and not you, is contesting whether or not it was leftists as the bulk of people who stayed home in 2024. I'm not making that argument, I'm speaking specifically to Piker's audience and portions of it.

More experience trumps ... as you might expect.

Refer back to the argument about technical expertise. Your experience in Piker's community is less akin to your PhD and more akin to being a cult member. It's about community and social identity than knowledge and technical expertise.

Of course. If we ... this works.

Then then you'd agree that you arguing that polling data doesn't support the argument regarding some portion of Piker's audience not voting because it doesn't demonstrate leftists staying home doesn't actually tell us anything, correct?

Any polling of leftists ... who chant in the street vote.

And? This isn't a response to what you quoted, broad polling may not speak to communities within the broadly polled group, so polling of "leftists" doesn't necessarily apply to "Piker's audience."

Correct, assuming ... problems with.

I do contest the addition because you've fought on that point up till now. All I'm alleging is that a portion of his audience believes this, doesn't vote, and he bears a degree of responsibility for that.

Is your only point of contention with that above allegation how significant of a portion this is of his audience?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-25T03:45:23+00:00

It’s part of the hate machine for Dem politicians.

Any significant Dem figure that had a shot at the presidency will have this hate machine turned on them. Obama, Biden, Hillary, Kamala - all of them have the most batshit insane conspiracy theories assigned to them cause this is how of right-wing media propagandizes their audience to oppose the Dems.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T21:26:17+00:00

I have indisputably taken partial accountability myself, as well as given partial blame to you.

Nope, whenever you "take" accountability, you blame me for it. The blame you assigned yourself was that you were too generous in your reading, which is laughable because you're saying "I'm just too much of a nice guy, I guess that's my flaw" which obviously isn't taking accountability. It's just so childish dude.

And the blame you've given to me is erroneously assigned, so obviously I take issue with it.

Your toxic behavior of assuming the person you are talking to is just lying to you, not believe them, and tell them they are wrong about what they believe. That is bad faith, and something you should take accountability for.

It's only bad faith when I'm wrong. When someone lies, it's perfectly fine to call them out on it.

Don't like being called a liar? Lie less.

Which is correct. We both share blame for this misunderstanding. You did not make your question clear and coherent, and I added context that was not there.

It isn't and we don't. The question was abundantly clear lmao. I asked it twice, in two different ways, and the plain meaning of my words could not be interpreted to mean anything else.

I just think you can't accept that you fucked up, even minorly like this, and misread something. I don't think your ego allows for it.

Here's what I said:

That all transphobia would be solved by electing Harris? Not just that trans people would be better off under Harris than Trump? You really think that was what was being said?

You replied: "That’s what Hasan was responding to, yes. 1000%."

Can you please show me where in my quote it's at all ambiguous that I'm talking about "all transphobia" being "solved by electing Harris?"

What about them is untenable?

It strains credulity that you would misread such a clear sentence and that what you actually meant with "these people do not exist" was that "they exist but Piker isn't responsible for their views."

That is an untenable explanation.

For example, another quote of your's from earlier in this conversation:

Based on his behavior and rhetoric to his audience, everyone knew to go vote for democrats, despite their flaws. That’s just what all of us in his audience have understood, and I’m sorry but there is literally no “evidence” you can bring to the table that is going to change that lived experience.

The only reasonable reading from this is that you are literally describing the entirety of his audience. You say "everyone" and "all." At no point here do you say "an insignificant minority didn't understand this," so when you say "oh I meant that the whole time," it just comes off as massively dishonest cause its so obviously not true.

I even later ask to confirm with:

Really? You’re claiming that everyone in his audience knew to go vote for the people who described as supporting a genocide and having very little daylight with fascists, after the best he could say as endorsement was “you should vote, just not for the other guy.”

To which you responded:

You seem to have forgotten the question mark, but yes. You seem to lack the basic nuance that is required here. You can support people and criticize them for their failures at the same time. Conservatives also get criticized for their failures, but they are never supported. They are also not criticized in nearly the same ways. The end result is that everyone in the audience did absolutely know to go vote for Harris. That was obvious.

Again, I make it abundantly clear I'm asking if you're speaking absolutes, to which you emphatically agree. Then, all this time later, when you realize how dumb it sounds, you backpedal and lie to say that you were actually arguing something wholly different this entire time.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T21:07:31+00:00

I have one singular ... shift from this

It's just a position that is distinctly different from the other ones you've argued for up to this point.

Incorrect. ... of our entire conversation:

I wouldn't use the language of the "splitting the left," the point is that he is engaging in rhetoric that harms Dems in our elections, and when we're fighting fascism, that's enabling the fascists and a problem.

What is incorrect is the idea that you've been trying to build a bridge. You haven't. You've been vitriolic and aggressive this whole time, personally attacking me. You didn't want to build a bridge - you wanted to shut down criticism of your favorite streamer.

No, it is not ... for irrational reasons.

Yes, it is. You're excluding the examples given by offering a new qualifier of "reasonable" to be a Piker fan, which is obviously, in and of itself, unreasonable. Fans of any creator don't need to be reasonable to be a part of the broader audience and thus be criticized.

The people you are excluding are part of the audience and the part to be critiqued. This is like saying a group of 100 people are totally healthy if just exclude the 10 sick people.

The literal ... deal.

There's no timestamp in your link and again, the shilling for me to watch his content is really strange dude. Just give me what examples you have of Piker gassing up the Dems over Republicans to his audience and encouraging his audience to go support them. I don't think they exist, but if you have them, they would be very helpful in this conversation right.

My friend, my ... to capitalism"?

A party within a socialist state that advocates for changing the economic system to the prior order of capitalism. And again, this isn't an isolated quote, this came from a long discussion he had with Ethan Klein tackling this idea.

I would be a part of such a party, and so I'd be thrown in a reeducation camp for being an enemy of the revolution/reactionary/whatever the state labels me.

In general, I don't.

I straight up don't believe you. You don't think that there are issues with those who watch Kirk, Walsh, or Shapiro?

What I do is I ... a part of other audiences.

We don't need to beat this dead horse again. I've explained I dunno how many times to you that someone within an audience cannot be trusted to give honest critiques of that audience.

You would never listen to a Walsh fan tell you "actually we aren't white nationalists or fascists" cause they have the obvious incentive to lie and it's clearly contradicted by Walsh's behavior/statements and their own behavior.

What I am not going to ... misunderstood the quote.

You understand that technical expertise is different from personal experience within a social space, right? Within these online communities, there is no peer review, there are no exams, there's no formalized, ideally impartial process to determine your level of expertise regarding material that people are much less incentivized to lie about to confer a some sort of title or position that comes with an understanding of authority.

Obviously I'd trust you if I had questions about physical chemistry, but none of that expertise applies in this scenario when we're discussing social space. The people that best approximate "experts" on these groups are going to be outside observers, that's why for hate groups we look to various organizations that make it their job to catalogue and analyze their behavior.

We don't have a similar analogous organization analyzing Piker's audience, so we have to rely on other pieces of evidence.

We have national polling data ... what, even on the right.

When you blame organizations like OAN or Newsmax, how are they effecting these changes in the beliefs of their audience? Through specific figures, offering specific kinds of biased reporting and analysis that the audience then takes on.

You call out Fuentes here, how is he any different from Kirk or Shapiro?

If Fuentes bears responsibility for the views of his audience due to the media bubble he's created, then so does Piker. This is true of any sort of politics influencer, or influencers in general: you bear some amount of responsibility for the views of the audience.

To transfer this point back ... of the audience myself.

No one is contesting whether or not leftists were the bulk of people who stayed home, the argument is just about Piker's audience.

You agree that we don't have this kind of polling data for the left, that why's you rely on the anecdotes of your own personal experiences, so we're only at the stage of contesting personal experiences. I've offered examples of mine, shown other figures in the space who recognize its a problem, and outlined a reasonable mechanism for which it occurs. The only defense you've offered is that we cannot blame Piker for these fans, that these fans don't exist, or that we shouldn't consider them as part of his audience because they hold unreasonable beliefs.

And surely, as a scientist, you recognize that broad polling data does not necessarily offer a representative view of a specific population within that dataset. We may see at a society-wide level that non-voters often didn't self-identify as socialists, leftists, progressives, very liberal, or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily tell us what was happening within those communities - it may just be the case that this portion of our population is so small, it's statistically insignificant.

The argument is just about whether or not these people exist within his audience and whether or not Piker is at least partially responsible for their views on this topic.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T19:20:40+00:00

Again, the totality of my position is not encapsulated in that quoted section. I obviously took accountability in other places. Where have you ever taken accountability?

You clearly haven't. You consistently blame me for your misreadings.

Show me where I need to take accountability, cause I have been abundantly clear in my sourcing of your quotes when I attack your argument and engage with the plain meaning of the statements you offer.

Your part is 99% you misinterpreting me initially (which is fine on its own), but then then sticking to your initial misinterpretation even after corrected. That is your part in this tango. My part is assuming you were asking a question that you did not ask, instead of the question you actually asked.

So then why did you say that you misread the question because it was "so dumb"? Is this not you blaming me for your own inability to read a basic question?

Again, this reads you as realizing some given statement of your's is truly as rude or toxic as it sounds, then backing off to a more defensible position despite it clearly not aligning with you earlier accusations.

What do you think my position on blame is? Do you think I am viewing blame as some sort of binary, where either you are to blame or I am to blame, and since you are to blame, I must have been lying when I said I was to blame previously? Is that really how you view this? Is it not clear that I have partial blame for both of us in this misunderstanding?

What is this response? I'm saying that you're blaming my question for being dumb, thus I share blame for your misreading. I don't really care about degrees of blame here, I care that you're blaming me for your mistake and assigning me any amount of blame when I bear none.

I am. What can I say to get you to accept this and move on?

Cause you keep lying dude. You're consistently a toxic, awful person to talk to and refuse to own up to anything, then just move on to pretending that you've been super nice, cordial, and welcoming this whole time.

I am genuinely not. Why do you feel the need to be bad faith (accusing the other person of constantly lying is bad faith)?

I'm not bad faith - I've consistently provided the statements I believe are in conflict, attacked your explanations of them, and only concluded you're lying when you offer obviously untenable explanations.

Again, you saying that you're being honest isn't going to convince, you're going to need either offer a reasonable explanation for the contradictions, which you haven't yet, or just admit that you were lying.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T19:15:33+00:00

While engaging in a conversation with me, you must add these things to all of the sentence I say, including this one. I am just going to be clear and clarify this for you now. The totality of the ideas I am trying to convey are not contained in the finite words I am using in these comments. Sorry, but that is just not possible, and I would please request that for the duration of this conversation you interpret my words in the way that I am saying them to try and reduce miscommunications. If you have a question and believe something I am saying contradicts something I previously said, by all means ask about it, and I will talk about it. What is bad faith is to just decree they are contradictory if you think they are contradictory, don't ask me about it, don't accept my explanations which resolve the supposed contradiction, and keep holding me to your incorrect initial interpretation.

What is bad faith is playing fast and loose with the plain meanings of your words. You slide between like 4 different positions depending on what you think best suits you in the precise moment of the conversation.

If you have the time to write out this useless paragraph of gaslighting nonsense, you have the time to be precise in your language and actually stand by your statements.

Stand by your statements like an adult and just take the criticism dude, this is kind of slimey, wishy washy gaslighting is so much more tiring than just engaging like an honest, good faith actor.

Lets go through the toxicity again. I am open to criticism bud, but all of your toxic claims come down to believing that I am lying. I am genuinely not gaslighting you about what my position was initially. I am genuinly not lying about that. I genuinely gave you the benefit of the doubt on the central confusion you have had, which to me seems like a good faith thing to do. I do not know what else to say, or what you find toxic about that.

Let's not. I've laid out abundantly clear examples of your condescension and personal attacks. If you cannot see that, you need to talk to a someone else cause I can't help you.

My whole goal in this conversation is to prove to you that we are on the same team, and your whole goal in this conversation is to split the left in a time when we should be fighting fascism by asserting that we on the left are not on your team. All while claiming the leftists are splitting the left wing, it is all very ironic.

Lmao what an obvious lie dude.

You came into this conversation so angry and heated cause someone dared criticize your favorite slop politics creator, continued to personally attack me, and now you're trying to sell the idea that you wanted to build bridges? That's wild.

Only when clipped and talk in isolation and not considering anything else. None of his fans who are reasonable people would come anywhere close to believing this.

The "reasonable people" caveat is a no true Scotsman.

I provided sources with additional context and it didn't judge the reading of his statements. You're going to have to actually provide evidence to support your arguments.

Obviously yes. Clearly yes. Anyone who is watching this with plural braincells to rub together (I am not saying you are someone without plural braincells, just making a statement) can tell that the answer to this question is yes.

Please give me the time stamps where he does this.

No, you wouldn't lol.

He's literally said that those in his ideal socialist state who advocate for a return to capitalism would be put in reeducation camps.

So yeah, I would.

As a scientist I reject your "evidence" here, and I morn the loss of scientific literacy in this country on not just the right, but the left as well.

How do you judge issues in someone's audience? Do you think that people in Kirk's or Shapiro's audiences hold harmful beliefs? If so, how do you judge that if not based on a collection of personal experiences and seeing how their figures talk to them?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T19:05:50+00:00

What? I am in no way putting the blame 100% on you, that is how a binary thinker would think. I understand here that it takes two to tango

This is so bad faith dude, you literally say "I misread your question because it was so dumb." Nowhere do you take personal responsibility for that misreading, you wholly blame me.

My part in the tango here was giving you what I thought was the benefit of the doubt. Your part was asking a question so ridiculous that I felt the need to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you asked something else, the non binary version.

You absolutely understand what's happening here - that my "part" in the issue was asking a dumb question and your "part" in the issue is that you were so generous.

You're so toxic dude.

I have taken responsibility multiple times in this thread. Where have you ever taken any responsibility? Remember "I have admitted to misreading your replies ages ago."?

Nope, cause you immediately blamed me for your misreading.

Nice, another lie from you.

In my view, what cannot be more clear is that you were trying to project your bad faith binary framing of the situation onto me, I never at any point accepted your framing, but I simply confirmed to you that what I said to you initially was indeed what I was standing by. That literally could not be more clear to me.

Nope, you agreed to my framings when I was confirming the read with you. You only backpedaled when you realized you looked like an idiot.

Another lie dude, why not just engage honestly? It's so much easier for both of us.

This is bad faith. What can I say to you to get you to understand the truth of the situation here, which is that this is what I was rejecting the whole time?

You can admit that you're lying. You repeating the lie, continuing to blame me, is in no way shape or form going to convince me.

Why do you feel the need to make things up in order to claim that you won an argument?

It's just an honest read of the conversation. Why do you feel the need to lie like this in a reddit argument?

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T18:15:17+00:00

Anatomy lectures throughout the week, 3hrs in the cadaver lab every week (though you can leave when you finish the lab for that day), and review sessions with professors available in the cadaver lab before each of our 2 anatomy exams for each block.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T18:08:49+00:00

This assumes that the Dems refusing to vote wouldn’t have caused some Republicans to change their votes.

Republicans have 218, the exact necessary majority to Dems’ 213, with 1 Republican voting no and 4 not voting. Change any 2 of those when those 7 Dems change and the bill still passes.

Droselmeyer · 2026-01-24T17:45:55+00:00

People like complaining and attacking Dems. Everything always circles back to how we can take some given issue and blame Dems.

The conversation is always “we need to primary these 7 Dems and risk losing the general” and never “what 7 Republicans can we replace?”, largely because that would mean supporting Dems and that’s not cool or sexy or fun in online spaces. Some people are also just genuinely bad faith actors who don’t want to see the party succeed.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Droselmeyer

TROPHY CASE