But your definition doesn’t describe individual instances of anything, only systemic patterns. How can you be sure an individual instance is intended as part of the pattern?
It’s the same kind of problem as pinning down an individual storm as being a result of climate change. You can’t realy, because individual data points aren’t themselves a pattern. You can say this point cloud makes a pattern. But you can’t be sure any individual point is part of the pattern or the background noise.
Now you are too deep in your hypothetics because Felix has a pattern of posting shit like this. I don’t need a what-if. The pattern exists in the post history. This is absolutely ridiculous at this point. You need to be so right you have switched to your hypothetical instead of focusing on the real thing happening right now.
I never proposed a hypothetical or what-if. I only directly referenced your definition. Then explained how systematic patterns work among random noise, and why you can’t apply them to an individual instance. I did include a real world example. But that’s not a what-if or hypothetical, that’s real and actual. and also only an example, not really meaningful to the point itself.
Edit: I feel like I’m assuming too broad of a knowledge base for you. If you don’t understand something please just ask instead of dismissing. I’d be happy to explain.
Are you serious right now? You were just talking about how I “never answered your question” about your hypothetical of the roles being switched still being propaganda. That was your what-if. You’re just trolling.
That was yesterday. More than a dozen comments ago. Are you not interested in this conversation?
You decided to engage with it finally, by giving a definition you think makes you right. Then when I point out it doesn’t. You ignore that, rewind, and claim you don’t want to talk about it.
I dont need to refute nonsense. You were complaining I didn’t answer your question. I linked my answer, which admittedly on reading it again is not as direct as I originally intended. Then you denied it was an answer, brought up the hypothetical role reversal and now we’re here. Which, even if the roles were reversed, and that too was propaganda, it does not mean that this image as currently depicted is not itself propaganda. The hypothetical vegan with big tits and weak meat eater does not mean that this image is not propaganda. Because it very much is. If you don’t believe that, cool. Enjoy your life, you can do you. But this is ridiculous. Either be satisfied or not but neither you nor I hold the high ground in these pits. This is so nested its just dumb.
You just skipped the whole beginning and jumped into the middle.
You do that a lot, skip forward and back in this conversation, expecting me to follow.
The hypothetical role reversal was literally my very fist comment, not something I brought up later. It was the question I said you didn’t answer.
And no I never suggested the comic wasn’t propaganda until you gave me your definition, and it didn’t fit.
My hypothetical was designed to root out your double standard bias in applying the propaganda label. A bias that became indisputable long ago. Your unwillingness to even consider that possibility has been my primary entertainment during idle time at work the last couple days. For that I thank you. But I’m off work for the next four days. Want to pick this up then?
But your definition doesn’t describe individual instances of anything, only systemic patterns. How can you be sure an individual instance is intended as part of the pattern?
It’s the same kind of problem as pinning down an individual storm as being a result of climate change. You can’t realy, because individual data points aren’t themselves a pattern. You can say this point cloud makes a pattern. But you can’t be sure any individual point is part of the pattern or the background noise.
Now you are too deep in your hypothetics because Felix has a pattern of posting shit like this. I don’t need a what-if. The pattern exists in the post history. This is absolutely ridiculous at this point. You need to be so right you have switched to your hypothetical instead of focusing on the real thing happening right now.
I never proposed a hypothetical or what-if. I only directly referenced your definition. Then explained how systematic patterns work among random noise, and why you can’t apply them to an individual instance. I did include a real world example. But that’s not a what-if or hypothetical, that’s real and actual. and also only an example, not really meaningful to the point itself.
Edit: I feel like I’m assuming too broad of a knowledge base for you. If you don’t understand something please just ask instead of dismissing. I’d be happy to explain.
Are you serious right now? You were just talking about how I “never answered your question” about your hypothetical of the roles being switched still being propaganda. That was your what-if. You’re just trolling.
That was yesterday. More than a dozen comments ago. Are you not interested in this conversation?
You decided to engage with it finally, by giving a definition you think makes you right. Then when I point out it doesn’t. You ignore that, rewind, and claim you don’t want to talk about it.
Okay. You don’t have to. You could just stop.
Yeah you’re just straight up making shit up and talking nonsense now.
Yah… Compelling rational there. Solid refutation. Class A debate tactic
I dont need to refute nonsense. You were complaining I didn’t answer your question. I linked my answer, which admittedly on reading it again is not as direct as I originally intended. Then you denied it was an answer, brought up the hypothetical role reversal and now we’re here. Which, even if the roles were reversed, and that too was propaganda, it does not mean that this image as currently depicted is not itself propaganda. The hypothetical vegan with big tits and weak meat eater does not mean that this image is not propaganda. Because it very much is. If you don’t believe that, cool. Enjoy your life, you can do you. But this is ridiculous. Either be satisfied or not but neither you nor I hold the high ground in these pits. This is so nested its just dumb.
You just skipped the whole beginning and jumped into the middle.
You do that a lot, skip forward and back in this conversation, expecting me to follow.
The hypothetical role reversal was literally my very fist comment, not something I brought up later. It was the question I said you didn’t answer.
And no I never suggested the comic wasn’t propaganda until you gave me your definition, and it didn’t fit.
My hypothetical was designed to root out your double standard bias in applying the propaganda label. A bias that became indisputable long ago. Your unwillingness to even consider that possibility has been my primary entertainment during idle time at work the last couple days. For that I thank you. But I’m off work for the next four days. Want to pick this up then?