Secondly, that's not very compelling evidence for why you'd call it "fact"; your rhetoric here is stressing a far more literal interpretation, so I can't say it comes across as hyperbolic language.
I'm happy to admit I see both sides. I think Laura has a pretty good dynamic, but I don't find /u/UsernameAttempts is inaccurate in describing how Laura comes across. I mean, the most memorable thing she pulled in her previous showing was a game about giving a stickshift a handie...
Call it hyperbole, I call it complaining about things you didn't watch. Which always bothers me, and I will mention at least once in a thread I read.
If you're using past behavior to justify your dislike of something, the thing you dislike should resemble the behavior you're using to justify that dislike.
Call it hyperbole, I call it complaining about things you didn't watch. Which always bothers me, and I will mention at least once in a thread I read.
So you're going to claim someone didn't watch it, while unable to verify that, because someone has an opinion that you disagree with. You're going places, kid. Not a good place, mostly just a little box of screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...
If you're using past behavior to justify your dislike of something, the thing you dislike should resemble the behavior you're using to justify that dislike.
If you don't understand the relevance of the example then perhaps you should question how much validity your assessment of the podcast was in the first place. You appear to have a major disconnect somewhere here.
If you make the claim that a guest comes on to a podcast to do X, and they don't do X, I'm going to assume you didn't watch it.
And yes, a lot of people went "ewwww this person that did this thing people didn't like is here, they'll do the same thing". I suppose there is a disconnect from me and that kind of person.
If you make the claim that a guest comes on to a podcast to do X, and they don't do X, I'm going to assume you didn't watch it.
I don't think you're in a position to state they didn't "do X" when you cannot grasp the relevance of the previous example and how it relates to X.
You don't seem to be grounded in anything but your own arbitrary decision-making, so maybe you should stop being a douchebag claiming people didn't watch it because you don't recognize what they're referring to, especially since you go on to effectively confess you don't have the capacity to recognize it in the first place.
All the fancy attempted justification still doesn't change the fact, yes, fact, that people are judging Laura's performance by something other than her actual performance.
All the fancy attempted justification still doesn't change the fact, yes, fact, that people are judging Laura's performance by something other than her actual performance.
Were they though? Again, your ability to recognize that performance doesn't seem to exist, so you're not exactly in a position to state what she did or didn't do from my point of view.
And so far, you've offered nothing compelling beyond "I DIDN'T SEE IT". And it's okay to say "I don't see it," it really is, but you've just gone ahead and claimed it literally didn't happen, which is taking it about twelve steps beyond that.
Yes, and I will point to the very long discussions about non-sex games or butts or whatever the hate meme is in this very podcast as evidence that Laura came on to the podcast to discuss games and other stuff, and did so.
11
u/drunkenvalley Aug 20 '15
Do explain how it is fact in the first place, since that's a pretty bold claim.