They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
It’s okay. In retrospect, I wasn’t called on to be so aggressive in my response to him. I should have just immediately blocked and moved on, but I let it get under my skin.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
It was, because like I said, it is ideological. You said it wasn’t. After I’ve explained my point, you can’t just say “nuh uh”.
What?? You need to go back and re-read who said what. I said it is ideological. It’s the other guy who said that it’s not.
Are … you replying to the wrong user? Oh gods, do you think I"m … him? 🤮
Oh dear, I’m sorry about that.
It’s okay. In retrospect, I wasn’t called on to be so aggressive in my response to him. I should have just immediately blocked and moved on, but I let it get under my skin.