Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

Nice scapegoating. I find very insuting that someone that is not from the MENA tell that all the people that participate in the uprisings in the MENA did it because external influence, in all content that I posted they named THEIR fight, including non violent protest and civil disobedience, a revolution. What westerns think is irrelevant to us. You call my content Wahhabi apology, because what? Becuase is in Arabic? Nobody talk about Wahhabism but you. And I don't need to excuse with a bigot that is not even willing to see what I'm posted and recur to ad hominems.

Edit: grammar.

1

0w0 wrote

And is especially insulting to the people that died protesting and fighting. Like some of the named in this article.

-4

supernice wrote

A few things for you:

What westerns think is irrelevant to us

  1. Who on Earth is "us"? You've said this a second time now. Are you the representative of all of Raddle, all of the Middle East & North Africa, or simply the entire world?

  2. You insulted me with your first response, so what do you expect from me in return? A kiss on the cheek perhaps?

  3. I've called you a Wahabbi apologist, not a Wahabbi. There's a distinction. I say this based on your responses to me when you where using the account /u/_0_0_. Make excuses for Wahabbis and I'll call you an apologist for them, simple as that. I deal with Wahabbis and those who enable them the same as I deal with Nazis and their enablers. Deal with it.

  4. You've repeated that I'm not from MENA, yet you have no idea who I am or where I'm from. This is yet another example of your ample stupidity and arrogance. Considering you say that you are from Brazil (if that is not a lie), then I suppose that makes you not from MENA as well. What's your point then?

  5. I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means, so please stick to your limited vocabulary as it will help you rather than make you look foolish. My post to this thread was about my objection to a singular word....not you or the subjects of the article. When you came at me with your infantile insults and assumptions, I hit back. My attacks on you have little to do with your position on the use of that word, rather your inability to be civil (maybe you are a Wahabbi after all?). I wouldn't call that ad hominem, I'd call it dealing with an idiot on the only level they can understand. My days of dealing with fools nicely and trying to get through their thick skulls ended many years ago friend, you'll get no pity from me.

  6. Are you so fucking infantile that you are still going on about this rather than moving on with your sad existence? For fucks sake, surely you have better options than to engage with me further on this? We are obviously beyond the point of any rational discussion, why do you persist?

Please, for the love of all that is beautiful in this world, do not think that I actually want an answer to the questions I've posed above. They are merely there for you to ponder. Just piss off so that we don't have to suffer any further exchanges with each other.

1

Brick wrote (edited )

Okay, you're out of fucking line. You're calling them stupid, limited vocabulary, idiot, fool, thick skull, infantile when you've been shown them saying they are "mentally disabled". Stop it you ableist asshole.

-2

supernice wrote (edited )

If the shoe fits. I said nothing about mentally disabled, those are your assumptions.

Edit: I misread the last part of your comment. I thought you were saying that i was calling them mentally disabled. My comments have nothing to do with their mental disability nonetheless. It's all about the way they've engaged me in this thread. Read into it what you will.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

My comments have nothing to do with their mental disability nonetheless

Presumably you know enough about these things to realise that what you've said not alright. If not, it might help if you imagine saying equivalent things with other forms of oppression you are more familiar with. Please cut it out immediately at the least.

I understand that they said some insulting things to you; that doesn't make this kind of behaviour acceptable.

0

supernice wrote

You're right. I missed the bit about their mental disability in the link Brick sent me, seemed to have nothing to do with what we were discussing when I scanned through it, so I moved on.

If someone is hostile to me, I respond back. The intention is not do belittle mentally disabled people in any way, it's only to return their insults in kind. But I doubt anyone is willing to believe that.

What's next? Am I banned? Not trying to be an ass, just honestly want to know.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Use non-ableist insults next time. Nothing's next. We usually give people the opportunity to stop, as I just did, so presuming you have that's as far as this goes for me unless someone makes a case to take it further.

I'd personally appreciate it if you didn't engage them OwO in a hostile way going forward.

0

supernice wrote

No worries. I'll be more thoughtful in my approach going forward and haven't the slightest desire to engage this user any further.