Devjavu

I'm just gonna ignore the first part of your post, because that seems like we would just have an infinite back and forth.

To use your mental image to reiterate: I was not standing there saying "Wow, I can't believe these two guys are stopping people.".
I was standing there, saying to someone else " Hey, they both are stopping people, but are saying they are right."
The appropriate response would have been "Well, one of them is wrong." and not "Fuck, you're an arsonist?".

I can just say it again for clarity if you want. I don't think you understand what I am after, even though I've spelled it out multiple times.

I am also completely perplexed that a person from lemmy.world just called me comrade lmaoo.

Sorry, I just hate americans. I have met a lot of nice people, but never knowingly a nice american. The worst wars I see originate from them. They bring destruction to the world, to my friends. And I know there must be some pretty incredibly people over there, but I am yet to meet one in person. I view them as uneducated and moronic. That's on me.

I did not intend to make a dead end statement. But I most definitely wasn't going in the direction where I was justifying gerrymandering on the republicans side for the reasons that they did it. What I did intended to make was an observation. No emotions behind it, no alterior motives, just an observation. I'm aware that them saying it is equal is false, but that's doesn't me saying that they say it is false. It brings attention to the issue. Which I would say, despite me getting cyberbullied into oblivion (I'm good), I achieved. If you say you're sick of hearing it, then perhaps I misjudged the situation in that you are well aware. I'm from overseas, never been to the americas.

You, as in the community, are actively discouraging me as a human being with emotions from talking like this again. Which in this case means for me to show an observation of mine in a politically charged context. You don't tell someone over and over that they have an ill intend without that affecting them. After some time they might actually believe it themselves.

To communicate is to interpret. Absolutely. Then tell me why after me saying multiple times, that I meant what I said as a way to show that what they say equals, but not what they do, do you still misunderstand me? Are you having trouble interpreting what I mean? You are interpreting something into it that I did not say. That is the difference.

Buddhism disagrees with you. It's not the truth of course, but it says what I didn't say says nothing about me. It's what you make out of it that says a lot. If you can not see the things for what they are, then you are no better than a republican. In my culture we ask first before we decide if a person meant something he said the way we think they do, if that conflicts with us personally. I've been called all sorts of names by this community for such "inappropriate" behavior, even autistic.

"Thing is, the Republicans are lying." Yes.

"So when you quote their excuse and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading propaganda." Well, it is propaganda, but I did not say that it is the truth, nor did I frame it that way. If Elon Musk said he wants to scan your genitals for world peace and I quote him saying that, does that make me think it is the truth?

"Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to..." Yes.

"...they are saying the same thing on the surface...one side...is lying..." Yes, that is what my comment was about.

"and if you wanted to spin it as "they both make the same claim...""
Well they are, one side is lying. Republicans say they want to cancel out the gerrymandering of the Democrats, which is bullshit.

You see, this is why I speak of nuance.
I say something along the lines of "Republicans and Democrats say the same thing about the other party gerrymandering.".
From a reasonable person, I would expect a repsonse like "Yes, but one side is lying.". Instead I get absolutely blasted. Are you aware that talking about issues is the first step to solving them? That talking about someone making up a political act is not the same as justifying a political act? How am I expected to talk about issues when the second I do there is not a single person wanting to talk about said issue and just tell me how wrong I am about an objectively right thing that has hapoened and is documented by both sides? Both said the same thing. That's it. There is nothing more to it.
Americunt.

Ok, so first of all, you american dipshits annoy the crap out of me with your overuse of the word listen. I am reading, you aren't saying a word to me. Always saying LiStEn like your conversation partner is soem kind of 3 year old. That's besides the point.

The first sentence of your previous comment said "...I don't think republicans say it cancels out anything.". I then told you that is exactly what they were saying when the gerrymandering shit was brought up, if you want to know when I heard it, that was a year ago. Now you're telling me you meant the democrats don't say that. You're inconsistent, possibly in your understanding of what I am saying.

And yes, democrats are canceling out the gerrymandering in Texas with their own in California.

So may I say, you don't read.

I'm not a troll, I'm am quite serious. I am also aware of the rhetorical device used by a lot of republicans and other countries' hiding fascists.

Seeing how the status quo speaks of something, whether that is left wing or right wing can help to understand where the divide is and help close it. I'm not a holy centrist, I would do things for which I will be put on a list if I say them out loud to have a world without billionaires.
But if republicans say this shit in advance to the exact opposite thing happening, that's powerful, because they can leverage that. It doesn't have to be true for that.
I'm making an observation that hopefully some less american-brained people will read exactly the way I wrote it and think about it.
So you guys can demonstrably show the community what a bad guy I am, but the people outside your fascihole of a country will work on this with me. I am also not the first one who has pointed this out either, it's just not on your land.

So I'm neither trolling, nor am I unaware of the rhetoric you speak of, nor am I one of your enemies. And I will continue speaking these things wether I find acceptance or not.

You don't have to interpret everything I say. You can also just read it as it stands there. You could also just help me to mark any future posts such as this one so people know it is meant literally. But no, you don't care about that, do you?

If by normal you average, they don't even really need 16gb.
Creative work can gobble up ram, heavy ass multitasking does as well.
So it's more in the digitally productive professional or hobbyist cases where you need such amounts as a person.

For development high amounts of rams can be useful for all sorts of stuff, it's not just compiling, but also testing, though 32 is often enough.

No, they say their gerrymandering cancels out the democrats. That does not make it right, but they've been saying it every single time gerrymandering was brought up.
"Democrats started it."

So my specificity is on point, actually, it's you just blatantly overlooking that, because all you hear is what they say. I'm on your side dipshit.
Eh, sucks to suck.

You have no idea how dense it is down there. We do not go down there.

I did do that.
I still use it from time to time.

That's not an equation of their action, it's an equation of people talking about it. Why do I have to repeat myself so often on this?

Oh, I wish that were true, but things are not this certain.

Phone.