[aipatselarom]

Chill. GP never said he was against or in favor of the current US administration. This is quite a deranged strawman argument that borders on a personal attack.

This behavior does not lead to clever or constructive conversation. There are much better ways to get your point across.

It feels weird to have to write this but it seems warranted: A religious preference is something that extends beyond the limited time and space of a US political party.

[jmye]

> deranged [...] that borders on a personal attack.

He says, unironically.

> This behavior does not lead to clever or constructive conversation.

He says, unironically.

Physician, heal thyself.

[pear01]

Except a cursory glance at their comment history shows otherwise. You could have put in some basic effort.

Also don't insult our intelligence. It's pretty clear what side of the partisan line someone who says both - "I'm a free speech absolutist" citing Musk while in the same breath complaining someone is being mean to Jesus - is on.

Maybe you are simply projecting some guilt about your electoral choices. I can't come up with a better reason for your comment beyond empty moral posturing.

[john_strinlai]

certainly off-topic and unlikely to lead to clever/construction conversation!

nothing about it is deranged, a strawman, or a borderline personal attack though.

>GP never said he was against or in favor of the current US administration

they have, actually! i quote: "I personally like Trump as a president."

[aipatselarom]

I'm happy to clarify but also please don't take it personal if this is my last comment wrt. to this; again, this does not really lead us to productive conversation and we can all do much better than that.

All definitions come from Google's AI summary, of course we can argue about those but I think they are pretty accurate.

deranged argument: a "deranged argument" refers to intensely illogical, paranoid, orpathological reasoning that often disrupts rational public discourse, characterized by extreme, often toxic, comparisons. It seems to me like that label is warranted, GP just wrote "I don't like that the game mocks Jesus" and got a somehow extreme response that I would definitely characterize as an "extreme, toxic comparison".

strawman: a dishonest debating tactic where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or fabricates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. In this case, GP wrote "I don't like that the game mocks Jesus", whereas the discussion was turned by some people into "I like the Trump administration".

Criticizing someone because of their political and religious preferences (and nothing else) is as personal as you can get. Most laws against harassment around the world specifically point out this behavior.

YMMV, if you consider this to not be relevant, it's actually ... ok. We all have different points of view and even "logical" things might seem illogical to others and I mean this honestly and without snark. We don't have to agree, the best I (we) can do is to thoroughly explain our points of view.

[mindslight]

There's really no need to steelman here. If you click the poster's comment history, this is on the very first page: "I personally like Trump as a president". So the post was nothing more than the same old pattern of selectively-applied ideals. At this point, thinking there must be some nuance or 4d chess behind this kind of criticism is just foolish.