• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I cannot parse that mess of a comment. In case you change it:

    Laura Loomer has already condemned to action, and I’m pretty sure she’s not the sort to let facts get in her way.

    She condemned to [sic] action, she’s a liar, she’s telling the truth on this one. ?

    No idea what that fruitcake has to do with any of this. Can you point to a non-factual anything in my comment? Cut out any bit you like. Show me where the lie touched you. Don’t insinuate anything! Reply to the words I stated.

    • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think dagwood there is agreeing with you, but saying that you present the facts as though the propagandists might correct the narrative if they understood. Dagwood thinks that’s naiive, and trots out Loomer as an example of the bullshit at work.

      How’d I do?

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Whew! Took my dumbass a minute, and an explanation to parse that. Still a little confused.

          OP made a false statement which I corrected. No, facts don’t matter in the wider world, but they mostly do around here. I mean, this place isn’t exactly FaceBook.