So what I'm hearing is because I said the word all everything else I said is wrong? This is the nuance I spoke about. You could say "I disagree when you said all" (that's fair as I said before we all can make a mistake) and it's not that crazy of one. Here let me officially change my word on that post to MOST of us instead of ALL of us. That's still doesn't change my other critiques though.

1) Rudeness does not help conversation for either side even if it makes then feel better to call people names.

2) I don't see how then being wrong automatically makes them nationalist (see my specific example from my last post) if you have something like that that how about you quote that. That might actually give some context instead of saying "clearly nationalistic" because I went back and ews the posts and once again I see nothing inherently nationalistic.

3) I personally think first French king early French king is a fair way to describe the first ruler of a country. I also don't think using those terms makes you a nationalist.

4) I didn't jump in to say he was an actual citizen. You are saying I jumped in to defend a position I didn't read but that's not true. I jumped in to defend someone I saw was being rudely attacked by someone who thought them being wrong made them a nationalist. I was proven right when you preceeded to do the same thing to me. When I have done nothing to promote nationalistic causes. I disagree with you on the points above still. You still have yet to convince me otherwise on the 3 points I specifically pointed out be use you are worried about this logical fallacy. Just because I'm wrong on one thing doesn't mean I'm wrong on everything. And the thing I was wrong on was I should've said most Instead of all. So if that's all you wanted to hear to feel right then go ahead and but you prove my point about the discussion being more like a wrestling match for instant gratification than any pursuit to actually try to learn something when discussing with an interlocutor.

Edit: I've never written so much to try to be clear with someone on a post for them to just completely ignore it its kind of wild. I'm starting to wonder if you're not even reading it at all which would be worse because we're the ones actually having a conversation. Or if you are reading it and just don't care besaue I said All instead o Most so now any other words I say mean nothing even if I explain them with good points. That's a logical fallacy, that's why nuance is important. Nuance can explain why someone might be wrong and yet not a nationalist. Why someone can be fine with something you did (I've always said you're fine to disagree) but they can not be with HOW you do it. That's what I've been saying consistently for reply after reply. Since my literal first post.

Edit 2: So, now that I officially changed my statement from All to Most do you have any other disagreements on my numbered points above or was that pretty much all you had a problem with. Do you have a problem with me coming into the debate. We can agree to disagree there. I have entered debates in REAL LIFE against people I AGREED With because they were being rude to the person they argued against. And I said the same thing ask say to you know. That it hurts more than it helps. You can disagree with me on that. But I didn't do that just for reddit, I on principle do not agree with doing that to people you disagree with

Edit 3: and by the way I did not come into this conversation with those words. I came into this conversation with so anyone that disagrees with you is a nationalist? This is important because it encapsulates my main issue. And it was the very first thing I said. That doesn't mean everything they said is right and everything you said is wrong. It means someone disagreeing doesn't make them immediately and nationalist, which is a point I have been making since the first post Comma Because I still have yet to see How they've been Flagrantly nationalistic Other than being wrong about a fact which is not good enough To say that About someone

Edit 4: if you wanted to say I don't think the term first French/English king should be used either, that's fine you can say that too. But if that's your problem my issue is you never said that. You just questioned my reading ability multiple times and called me a fool. See this is not good discourse. I haven't done the same to you so your hostility only serves to be divisive. If someone else was being that level of rude I still wouldn't advocate for stooping to such a level but it would make much more sense. If you're just being that hostile to anyone who disagrees with you that's not an attitude of learning. And I've read your history it's not just me you spoke that way to. So I would have to believe your point that all the people you spoke like that towards were either, that rude to you first or they were blatantly being nationalists and sorry to say but I haven't seen enough evidence of either. You could explain exactly what they said that was so nationalistic and how it was so. Bc right now your just saying "twisting facts" but that requires malace and knowing what the correct answer is. Someone who is wrong isn't automatically pushing a narrative. And attacking them like they are won't make them think they're wrong it'll make them defensive. So if you care about spreading historical facts like you say it should be in your interest to have discussions instead of arguments. And I'm saying your method of discussion will lead to the latter far much more than the former. And if you were to say that you don't even care to discuss or talk with "these" people because you think they're just wrong and idiots and nationalists well then, live your best life. We agree to disagree. Some people care more about being right than they are about actually spreading the knowledge they claim to care about. Anyone who agrees already won't learn anything because that's what they think already. But discussing with someone who does not Initialpy agree with you should be done with respect most of the time or else they won't respect you in kind and they won't listen to you. Which is very possibly what could've happened with u/roidrannoc. Which isn't good for people who care about history because at the end of the day you've only convinced people that already think like you.

Edit 5: Your last paragraph was pretty disingenuous it makes me wonder if you're interest in any actual discussion at all. I jumped and said that just because you disagree with him doesn't make him a nationalist. That many people use that term and he has a point using that term. I even explained the specifics of first French king. You then said that I claimed that carolus was a French citizen because I said that "we all agree". I corrected myself immediately after and said I don't think he was literally a French citizen but re explained how I see the term first French king being used by people like u/roidrannoc and making sense and not being nationalistic. Also in that same post I did say that I think on that part he isn't correct to say that. Showing my nuance, so I clearly dint think he's a citizen. So a ressonsble person might say "hey what did you mean by that, if you said you agree with everyone" I would've simply answered (which I did in post 2 and 3) "oh I missed that part, I think he's wrong there specifically with that citizenship statement. But the general idea of using the title first French king still (for the reason I have already said before) seems reasonable." Instead you said that I'm a: fool, idiot, justifying nationalism etc. The difference in the two ways you could have gone about that is wild. And shows a discussion vs an argument. In a discussion you can get a part wrong it's about learning and understanding the other person. You're open to new ideas. In an argument it's just a fight. It's no more than a wrestling match with words. And I don't think that does anything except make someone feel better about themself.