Who understood you? I've got examples of actual people understanding me. Where are yours? It sure isn't me.

Here is my response to that post:

I understood you from the beginning. Everything else is you denying, deflecting, ignoring, and/or justifying (i.e. gaslighting), so you do not have to address this. You still have not responded to this post adequately. Not one person agreed with your conclusion, up to this point. They were all trying to explain your conclusion, and what you meant, but they did not agree with it.

I am pretty sure no one knows what you are talking about, they just dont want to be a part of this weird thread.

Can you just say what your original point was? I have no idea.

That's gibberish/incoherent to MrWookie. He wanted me to define racism, becasue he did not understand the point I was making about usage of terms. In essence, after this post, he conflated definition and usage, in an attempt to create a red herring. I called him on it. He pretended he did not understand me, and posted the gibberish post. He still does not understand incorrect usage does not necessarily require a definition to be incorrect usage. That last point is incoherent to MrWookie, apparently.

The other problem is, no one else had an issue understanding what I was talking about, except MrWookie. Can't come in, after the fact, and pretend to say you do not know what I was talking about, when three other people explicitly contended with my position.

MrW wasn’t manipulating your words or shifting goal posts in that exchange you quoted, you realize that don’t you? I think you were the person who was earlier touting your reading comprehension, so MrW was twisting the knife a bit as he was illustrating how unreasonable your interpretation of Warren’s tweet was.

My problem with that exchange is, he asked me a question, I answered. Then he mocks my answer, and asks a different question, questioning the the logical coherency of my interpretation, when he figured out his first question was not the brightest. He wants to discuss the logical coherency of peoples views, always. If I continued in that thread, I could have pointed to how logically coherent my view was (which is what he was attacking, again), and I'd be spinning my wheels, while he did his deny, deflect, justify, ignore routine. That does not mean my view is right, or wrong, it's just logical, which is what he is disputing. He does not really contend with my position, he only contends with the coherency of it, and will never agree that it's coherent. So, we never get anywhere.


I do not think my interpretation was unreasonable, I do believe it was disagreeable, and there is valid points on that front. I'm not getting in any more interpretation battles with MrWookie, and that's what he almost exclusively focuses on. He believes my post are gibberish. He has some sort of comprehension problem when it comes to my post. (In reality, he disagrees, but he only only knows to attack the logical coherency)

You'd find if MrWookie just stated his position, instead of asking a series of questions aimed at ridiculing, or trying to get gotcha's, or questions the logic in the perfectly acceptable logical conclusions people make (despite those conclusions being disagreeable), the toxicity he specifically encounters would dissipate. He will not do that though. Let's not pretend I'm the only one he has this issue with.

Everyone has to be mallable to MrWookie on what he means, but it seems too big of a chore for him towards others.

The gibberish post he made is a perfect example of this. Because he can't explain why he does not understand what I'm saying, in his mind, it's my fault. You were able to understand my point, and object to it, as were two other people. My post are objectively intelligible, and coherent, although not as precise, and not as agreeable as some would like. He can't seem to comprehend the logic in order to contend with the position, or so he says.

Yeah man, I was mocking your answer because it was obviously and objectively wrong.

I do not take issue with you mocking me, or having that conclusion MrWookie, it's when you gaslight. Which is what you are doing here. The correct answer to the first question you asked was, "head on".

Warren stated in clear and unambiguous terms what was to be taken "head on," and it wasn't the police. She also very clearly only called one cop a murderer. You were lying about both of those things.

You are gaslighting.

Supplying Warren's answer for how something else should be confronted is not a correct answer to how the police should be stopped.

I asked you that first question because I didn't think you were either dumb or craven enough to deliberately misread Warren's direct quote. That was a mistake by me. I should have taken a hint from how you deliberately lied about her calling white cops in general murderers instead of one particular cop that you were indeed dumb and or craven enough to lie about the contents of a direct quotation that we have in front of us in writing.

Gaslighting again

Supplying Warren's answer for how something else should be confronted is not a correct answer to how theses cops should be stopped.

My sentence has the same meaning even now.

Your edit:

This is also gaslighting.

That is talking about a specific kind of cop.

It's obvious to anyone why you didn't answer my follow up question. It's because to answer it would be to admit to being the lying troll you are.

This is gaslighting as well.


Warren provided an example of the problem, which she then characterized the problem, then addressed the solution, to which said it needed to be confronted head on.

Accusing me of gaslighting without quoting Warren to prove it is empty trolling.

I did not answer becasue you were gaslighting me, like you are now. This is a deflection, as well.

Tralalalalallalalala

I already supplied the answer to my own question. Is my answer to my question a lie?

You are engaging the exact behavior I described to M2B.

Alright, we're done here.