splinter

What do you think it would take?

Yup. The phrase “EV truck maker” is doing a lot of work in this title.

Yup

Keep at it!

You’ve got nothing, sorry.

You’ve failed at addressing my argument directly, failed at building a straw man, so I guess it makes sense you’d be trying ad hominem.

There are plenty of fake accounts in existence.

You don’t know either way, which makes your attribution entirely fallacious.

You really can’t address the argument I made, can you?

Your comment was so reductive as to be indistinguishable from bad faith equivalency. The claim that you didn’t mean to speaks only to your naivety.

You can’t just ignore parts of the argument to which you have no answer.

You don’t know who that person is or whether they even exist. It is beyond spurious to assign their statements to any other entity.

I pointed out that your argument was so reductive as to amount to both-siding. I’m glad it wasn’t your intent, but it’s a shame that you don’t see the problem with that regardless.

If you mean @barry_aptt then I'm happy to report that I did check their profile before making my original comment.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You have no idea who that person is, what correlation their posting has to their political position, or in fact whether they exist at all. And you’re drawing equivalence between that post and a recorded statement by the president.

If you think a bit harder about your reference you might remember that Barthes’ essay argues against relying on the intent of the original author. This isn’t the coup de grace you think it is.

And again, this has nothing to do with you. I’m not claiming any specific intent behind your statements. I am pointing out the demonstrable fact that your argument not only can be misinterpreted, but that it is more likely to be interpreted as drawing equivalence, given how that same position has been commonly used.