â„–3106058[Quote]
>>3106054 (OP)Smoking is bad
â„–3106070[Quote]
>>3106065I have never seen someone identify themselves as Judeo-Bolsheviks in my life
â„–3106075[Quote]
>>3106070the point is most jews are communists, from lenin to trotsky. or in the US, most university kids were jewish and they are the most radical leftists to this day. they were the niggers who pushed the sexual revolution and anti-morality counter culture
â„–3106088[Quote]
>>3106077You are not being clever, you are outsourcing your entire personality to the most effortless possible move. Quoting someone else and pretending that alone is humor or insight is basically the rhetorical equivalent of pointing at something and laughing without explaining why. It is parasitic. There is no framing, no reinterpretation, no escalation, just empty duplication dressed up as wit. What makes it worse is the smugness attached to it. You use a green arrow, add a caption that somewhat relates to the topic, add a half naked image of a grey muscular man from your folder of many, and act like you delivered some devastating critique, when in reality you added nothing. If the original post was actually flawed or worth mocking, then show that. Break it down, exaggerate it, twist it, do anything that proves you actually understand it. There is a deeper issue too. Gigaquoting turns discussion into pure mimicry. Instead of engaging with ideas, everything becomes repetition where whoever quotes first pretends they won. That is not even low effort argument, it is the absence of argument. You are not exposing contradictions or highlighting absurdity, you are just hoping nobody expects substance. If you actually want to shut someone down, you need to add something they did not already provide. Insight, irony, context, or even just sharper wording. Otherwise all you have proven is that you can copy text and rely on formatting to carry you. That is not dominance, that is dependency.
â„–3106091[Quote]
>>3106075jews admit this:
>(((Midge Decter)))>"They [conservatives] hate liberals. As it happens, most Jews are liberals." â„–3106099[Quote]
>You are not being clever, you are outsourcing your entire personality to the most effortless possible move. Quoting someone else and pretending that alone is humor or insight is basically the rhetorical equivalent of pointing at something and laughing without explaining why. It is parasitic. There is no framing, no reinterpretation, no escalation, just empty duplication dressed up as wit. What makes it worse is the smugness attached to it. You use a green arrow, add a caption that somewhat relates to the topic, add a half naked image of a grey muscular man from your folder of many, and act like you delivered some devastating critique, when in reality you added nothing. If the original post was actually flawed or worth mocking, then show that. Break it down, exaggerate it, twist it, do anything that proves you actually understand it. There is a deeper issue too. Gigaquoting turns discussion into pure mimicry. Instead of engaging with ideas, everything becomes repetition where whoever quotes first pretends they won. That is not even low effort argument, it is the absence of argument. You are not exposing contradictions or highlighting absurdity, you are just hoping nobody expects substance. If you actually want to shut someone down, you need to add something they did not already provide. Insight, irony, context, or even just sharper wording. Otherwise all you have proven is that you can copy text and rely on formatting to carry you. That is not dominance, that is dependency.