I know I’m banging my head against a wall here, but I’ll say it again…
It’s amazing that the same person who chastises other groups for being bad at cooperation starts off so many arguments with “if you disagree with me, you’re a fucking moron.”
How is this any different from the Neera Tandens of the world saying: “If you disagree with me, you’re racist and/or sexist.” Or other Clintonites who use the same exact tact you’re using i.e. “If you don’t think Hillary is awesome, you’re stupid.”
This is just an attempt to shut down debate by shaming the other side and it sure as hell isn’t going to engender discussion/cooperation. If you think North Korea is a legitimate threat, are you going to read an article that calls you a moron in the title and then again within the first two paragraphs?
All this does is reinforce your echo chamber with only people who already agree with you cheering in the comments, but maybe that’s your goal.
I happen to agree with you, but dismissing the other side as dumb and providing almost no substantive evidence other than “they lied before” is a very bad approach to proving you’re as right as you think you are.
And, FYI, the Japanese gov’t sided with a genocidal maniac, then attacked the United States. I have no idea if dropping two nuclear bombs was necessary to dump the regime and killing that many innocent civilians was obviously unjustified, but when you leave out salient facts such as those (which sure make regime change look reasonable in that specific case), it undercuts your credibility.
