After some extended conversation we’ve arrived at why you want to ask the question in this particular convoluted way: Because you want to imply a particular narrative, where having a more direct version of the conversation would instantly expose that what you’re trying to imply is a bunch of crap.
I asked the straightforward version of your question, the answer to which you can check out, in the unlikely-to-me event that you seriously believe what you’re saying here.
Maybe we’re talking about different things. I’m defining a narrative as the way someone describes how they perceive something. If I tell you how I think the world works that’s a narrative. And in a political conversation most people engage in the hopes of either finding someone who agrees with their narrative or hopes to convince someone of their narrative.
Do you disagree with that?
By the way, your comments are getting a bit more aggressive and it’s unwarranted. I haven’t called you any names so there’s no need to call me any. If you do it again we can just end the conversation.
the way someone describes how they perceive something
I don’t think you actually think that lots of people on Lemmy support Israel. I think you know that the general opinion is wildly anti-Israel (as it should be), and you’re deliberately linking “Biden” to “Israel” by pretending to misunderstand what you’re seeing, in the hope that the anti-Israel sentiment will translate to anti-Biden sentiment by pure word association.
That’s what I meant by “a narrative” – maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “a dishonest propaganda narrative” instead, to distinguish it from the simple factual description of a narrative that you gave.
If it is actually something that you think is happening, I think you want to take a step back and reexamine whatever it was that led you to think that in the first place.
Therrrrre it is
After some extended conversation we’ve arrived at why you want to ask the question in this particular convoluted way: Because you want to imply a particular narrative, where having a more direct version of the conversation would instantly expose that what you’re trying to imply is a bunch of crap.
I asked the straightforward version of your question, the answer to which you can check out, in the unlikely-to-me event that you seriously believe what you’re saying here.
… Are you new to political discussions? That’s everybody.
Everybody who’s a phony, a big fat phony, maybe.
And one hallmark of the big fat phonies is that they try to claim everyone else is a big fat phony, too.
Maybe we’re talking about different things. I’m defining a narrative as the way someone describes how they perceive something. If I tell you how I think the world works that’s a narrative. And in a political conversation most people engage in the hopes of either finding someone who agrees with their narrative or hopes to convince someone of their narrative.
Do you disagree with that?
By the way, your comments are getting a bit more aggressive and it’s unwarranted. I haven’t called you any names so there’s no need to call me any. If you do it again we can just end the conversation.
I don’t think you actually think that lots of people on Lemmy support Israel. I think you know that the general opinion is wildly anti-Israel (as it should be), and you’re deliberately linking “Biden” to “Israel” by pretending to misunderstand what you’re seeing, in the hope that the anti-Israel sentiment will translate to anti-Biden sentiment by pure word association.
That’s what I meant by “a narrative” – maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “a dishonest propaganda narrative” instead, to distinguish it from the simple factual description of a narrative that you gave.
Ok. I’m not sure what to do with that.
You can go look and see whether this belief you profess would be an accurate belief to hold
If it is actually something that you think is happening, I think you want to take a step back and reexamine whatever it was that led you to think that in the first place.
Go fuck yourself man.